WHILE foreign dignitaries are treated to a glitzy Buckingham Palace reception, complimentary luxury cars and their own private Olympic transport lane – this was the scene that greeted our Hampshire
troops guarding London 2012.

Drafted in at the last minute amid a security fiasco, hundreds of members of the 1st Battalion, Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment (1PWRR) have been billeted in underground car parks, shopping
centres and deserted warehouses.

Now a Hampshire MP is demanding an investigation into their treatment – which comes just months after the regiment – nicknamed the Tigers – returned from Afghanistan.

There they had spent a gruelling six months on the frontline and have now had their leave cancelled to step in at the Games.

These pictures, sent to the Daily Echo by a parent of one of the soldiers, show troops lined up on cramped military camp beds on the bottom floor of a multi-storey car park, where the rest
of the floors are still being used. The Daily Echo understands that in some places that troops are staying, the soldiers have no access to electricity and are on Army rations.

Businesses and shops have stepped in to top up the food supply – offering half-price pizzas and fast food.

Related links

But Fiona Mason, 51, from Fair Oak , whose son Paul, 21, is serving with the Tigers, says the troops should be treated with more respect.

She added: “It’s absolutely disgusting. They were treated better in the desert.”

Last week the Daily Echo revealed how hundreds of Princess of Wales troops had been drafted in to guard some Olympic sites, including the beach volleyball at Horseguards Parade.

Some troops have been given passes to events in an attempt by organisers to fill empty seats.

But dad Simon Lynch- Garbett, 56, from Tenerife whose son James, 28, is staying in the Tower Bridge area with the regiment. says handing out a few free tickets does not make up for the way they
have been treated.

He said: “They don’t even have access to electricity.

“They’ve spent months out there fighting for our country and this is the way they’re being treated. I understand they have got them some tickets – but that’s only because the seats are empty.”

Margaret Powell, 67, from Hill Head, who knows several of her son’s friends are staying in London with the Tigers during the Olympics , added: “They
come back from Afghanistan and then they’re treated like second class citizens – prisoners are treated better.”

The conditions the soldiers are enduring are in stark contrast to the luxury that celebs and dignitaries will enjoy during the next two weeks.

Dozens of “superyachts” have lined up in London’s docks – turning it into a “mini Monaco” for the Games.

A-list celebrities and the mega-rich are staying on the luxurious cruisers to guarantee them front row seats for the Olympics.

Dignitaries from around the world were also treated to a glamorous reception at Buckingham Palace hosted by the Queen.

Reports also suggest they have been provided with chauffeur- driven BMWs to travel around in, using the speciallydesignated Olympic lanes that are out-of-bounds for normal drivers.

So far, 17,500 troops have been drafted in to provide security at the Games, after private security firm G4S admitted it did not have the manpower to fulfil its Olympic contract.

He said: “We know that the various select committees in the House of Commons are going to look at the problems with security contracts – as part of that wider investigation, I hope they also look
into how the emergency deployment of troops was handled.”

“When the troops were put on standby, we were told that this was part of a contingency plan being put in place – if it was a contingency plan you have got to ask what plans did they make to
accommodate the soldiers?

“Surely somebody should have been looking at it in advance to see what arrangements would be made for accommodation.”

The Army said it was doing all it could to make the experience more comfortable for troops – including sending round an ice cream van to the places where soldiers are staying.

A spokesman said: “Since the uplift in the military contribution we have been working hard to ensure that our armed forces, who are of course used to living in austere conditions on operations, are
accommodated appropriately and as comfortable as possible, with access to sufficient rest and recreational facilities

TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.

They're soldiers - I'm sure they've seen a lot worse.
TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.St Retford

Shoong wrote:
They are soldiers - they are trained to be hard and can take it. I doubt you'll find them complaining either.

Agreed. Better to be in england than being shot at. Hoiday camp for them.

[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
They are soldiers - they are trained to be hard and can take it. I doubt you'll find them complaining either.[/p][/quote]Agreed. Better to be in england than being shot at. Hoiday camp for them.townieboy

Shoong and Townieboy. Soldiers and hard they may very well be, but why should they have to be treated in this way when there are so many living the high life and giving so little back in return?

Shoong and Townieboy. Soldiers and hard they may very well be, but why should they have to be treated in this way when there are so many living the high life and giving so little back in return?chapelsaint

chapelsaint wrote:
Shoong and Townieboy. Soldiers and hard they may very well be, but why should they have to be treated in this way when there are so many living the high life and giving so little back in return?

Think about it.

We didn't know they were needed until a few weeks ago thanks to no-one turning up for G4S security duties, what would you recommend, turfing out all the hotels and putting soldiers in there?

It's only for a couple of weeks, they have backbones so will get on with it.

[quote][p][bold]chapelsaint[/bold] wrote:
Shoong and Townieboy. Soldiers and hard they may very well be, but why should they have to be treated in this way when there are so many living the high life and giving so little back in return?[/p][/quote]Think about it.
We didn't know they were needed until a few weeks ago thanks to no-one turning up for G4S security duties, what would you recommend, turfing out all the hotels and putting soldiers in there?
It's only for a couple of weeks, they have backbones so will get on with it.Shoong

The organisation of the Olympic Games, security wise, has been an absolute shambles, blame to be laid at teflon Coe, LOCOG and the Home Secretary.
Exhausted troops from Afghanistan looking forward to spending the school holidays with their families, drafted in at the last minute, sleeping in car parks.
By the time they are relieved the school holidays will be over and they will have lost this precious with their children.
Not all servicemen are affected however, Princes William and Harry, both serving officers, seem to have an inordinate amount of leave!!

The organisation of the Olympic Games, security wise, has been an absolute shambles, blame to be laid at teflon Coe, LOCOG and the Home Secretary.
Exhausted troops from Afghanistan looking forward to spending the school holidays with their families, drafted in at the last minute, sleeping in car parks.
By the time they are relieved the school holidays will be over and they will have lost this precious with their children.
Not all servicemen are affected however, Princes William and Harry, both serving officers, seem to have an inordinate amount of leave!!TEBOURBA

Soldiers can and will take the conditions and yes will do so without complaint because they have discipline.

The question is why are we making them ? In a war zone there are good reasons why accomodation has to be basic and creature comforts limited. In London the capital city of one of the wealthiest nations on earth, there is simply no need and it is as others have said simply a disgrace.

Soldiers can and will take the conditions and yes will do so without complaint because they have discipline.
The question is why are we making them ? In a war zone there are good reasons why accomodation has to be basic and creature comforts limited. In London the capital city of one of the wealthiest nations on earth, there is simply no need and it is as others have said simply a disgrace.SotonGreen

Sometimes the words and actions of some people and Governments in this country sicken me to the stomach.
.
This country treats "hero's" like second class citizens.
.
It treats its elderly, disabled and the less fortunate as if they were not a part of its future or a survivor of its past.
.
We treat our law enforcers with such contempt that it suprises me that at times we have any prepared to carry on with the job.
.
Yet we fail to punish finacial institution employers and employees who continually abuse what "powers" they are enriched with ....... and re-elect those who fail time after time to "run" our Country.
.
These troops were not brought in as a contingency ....... but to save the skin of a useless and failed Home Secretary and her pathetic schoolboy helpers.

Sometimes the words and actions of some people and Governments in this country sicken me to the stomach.
.
This country treats "hero's" like second class citizens.
.
It treats its elderly, disabled and the less fortunate as if they were not a part of its future or a survivor of its past.
.
We treat our law enforcers with such contempt that it suprises me that at times we have any prepared to carry on with the job.
.
Yet we fail to punish finacial institution employers and employees who continually abuse what "powers" they are enriched with ....... and re-elect those who fail time after time to "run" our Country.
.
These troops were not brought in as a contingency ....... but to save the skin of a useless and failed Home Secretary and her pathetic schoolboy helpers.Lone Ranger.

SotonGreen wrote:
Soldiers can and will take the conditions and yes will do so without complaint because they have discipline.

The question is why are we making them ? In a war zone there are good reasons why accomodation has to be basic and creature comforts limited. In London the capital city of one of the wealthiest nations on earth, there is simply no need and it is as others have said simply a disgrace.

Agree with you, it might make good training, (not over keen on the word discipline because it can mean brainwashing) but there is no need for it, they could of put up porta sleeping cabins in the nearest open green or area.
And as St Retford as remembered those lot that had to sleep and eat under a bridge on the weekend of the Queen Jubilee, if they did not do it there benefits would of been stop.

[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote:
Soldiers can and will take the conditions and yes will do so without complaint because they have discipline.
The question is why are we making them ? In a war zone there are good reasons why accomodation has to be basic and creature comforts limited. In London the capital city of one of the wealthiest nations on earth, there is simply no need and it is as others have said simply a disgrace.[/p][/quote]Agree with you, it might make good training, (not over keen on the word discipline because it can mean brainwashing) but there is no need for it, they could of put up porta sleeping cabins in the nearest open green or area.
And as St Retford as remembered those lot that had to sleep and eat under a bridge on the weekend of the Queen Jubilee, if they did not do it there benefits would of been stop.southy

chapelsaint wrote:
Shoong and Townieboy. Soldiers and hard they may very well be, but why should they have to be treated in this way when there are so many living the high life and giving so little back in return?

Think about it.

We didn't know they were needed until a few weeks ago thanks to no-one turning up for G4S security duties, what would you recommend, turfing out all the hotels and putting soldiers in there?

It's only for a couple of weeks, they have backbones so will get on with it.

For once i agree with you Shoong. These soldiers are doing the jobs they are supposed to do. For security reasons alone I suspect putting them in a hotel is folly and they are used to far worse conditions!! They train people to cope with all sorts in the army so I think a couple of weeks in a car park is a walk in the park compared to most of their frontline activity.

I suspect the families are fed up with leave being cancelled and quite rightly but would they rather there be some huge terrorist attack? I think not. that's what happens when you are in a front line service like this. I hope the government do give some recognition though to the whole army who have bailed them out of a whole lot of trouble and G4 are made to perhaps hand over some of their money to the armed forces !!

Noone forces anyone into the services, people go into it knowing that they could be put in danger, be in severe conditions etc. I admire anyone who has the bottle to do that but their job is to protect this country and they are doing just that. Stop moaning!

[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]chapelsaint[/bold] wrote:
Shoong and Townieboy. Soldiers and hard they may very well be, but why should they have to be treated in this way when there are so many living the high life and giving so little back in return?[/p][/quote]Think about it.
We didn't know they were needed until a few weeks ago thanks to no-one turning up for G4S security duties, what would you recommend, turfing out all the hotels and putting soldiers in there?
It's only for a couple of weeks, they have backbones so will get on with it.[/p][/quote]For once i agree with you Shoong. These soldiers are doing the jobs they are supposed to do. For security reasons alone I suspect putting them in a hotel is folly and they are used to far worse conditions!! They train people to cope with all sorts in the army so I think a couple of weeks in a car park is a walk in the park compared to most of their frontline activity.
I suspect the families are fed up with leave being cancelled and quite rightly but would they rather there be some huge terrorist attack? I think not. that's what happens when you are in a front line service like this. I hope the government do give some recognition though to the whole army who have bailed them out of a whole lot of trouble and G4 are made to perhaps hand over some of their money to the armed forces !!
Noone forces anyone into the services, people go into it knowing that they could be put in danger, be in severe conditions etc. I admire anyone who has the bottle to do that but their job is to protect this country and they are doing just that. Stop moaning!freemantlegirl2

SotonGreen wrote:
Soldiers can and will take the conditions and yes will do so without complaint because they have discipline.

The question is why are we making them ? In a war zone there are good reasons why accomodation has to be basic and creature comforts limited. In London the capital city of one of the wealthiest nations on earth, there is simply no need and it is as others have said simply a disgrace.

Agree with you, it might make good training, (not over keen on the word discipline because it can mean brainwashing) but there is no need for it, they could of put up porta sleeping cabins in the nearest open green or area.
And as St Retford as remembered those lot that had to sleep and eat under a bridge on the weekend of the Queen Jubilee, if they did not do it there benefits would of been stop.

Your not over keen on the word 'discipline'?

Doesn't bode well for the TUSC's crime and punishment policy then does it (if there is one)?

[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote:
Soldiers can and will take the conditions and yes will do so without complaint because they have discipline.
The question is why are we making them ? In a war zone there are good reasons why accomodation has to be basic and creature comforts limited. In London the capital city of one of the wealthiest nations on earth, there is simply no need and it is as others have said simply a disgrace.[/p][/quote]Agree with you, it might make good training, (not over keen on the word discipline because it can mean brainwashing) but there is no need for it, they could of put up porta sleeping cabins in the nearest open green or area.
And as St Retford as remembered those lot that had to sleep and eat under a bridge on the weekend of the Queen Jubilee, if they did not do it there benefits would of been stop.[/p][/quote]Your not over keen on the word 'discipline'?
Doesn't bode well for the TUSC's crime and punishment policy then does it (if there is one)?Shoong

SotonGreen wrote:
Soldiers can and will take the conditions and yes will do so without complaint because they have discipline.

The question is why are we making them ? In a war zone there are good reasons why accomodation has to be basic and creature comforts limited. In London the capital city of one of the wealthiest nations on earth, there is simply no need and it is as others have said simply a disgrace.

Agree with you, it might make good training, (not over keen on the word discipline because it can mean brainwashing) but there is no need for it, they could of put up porta sleeping cabins in the nearest open green or area.
And as St Retford as remembered those lot that had to sleep and eat under a bridge on the weekend of the Queen Jubilee, if they did not do it there benefits would of been stop.

Your not over keen on the word 'discipline'?

Doesn't bode well for the TUSC's crime and punishment policy then does it (if there is one)?

Yes there is crime and punishment policy, the word don't bode well with me, I said nothing about the TUSC just remember you was the one who bought it up, before people start saying i done it again, where it seldom is.

[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote:
Soldiers can and will take the conditions and yes will do so without complaint because they have discipline.
The question is why are we making them ? In a war zone there are good reasons why accomodation has to be basic and creature comforts limited. In London the capital city of one of the wealthiest nations on earth, there is simply no need and it is as others have said simply a disgrace.[/p][/quote]Agree with you, it might make good training, (not over keen on the word discipline because it can mean brainwashing) but there is no need for it, they could of put up porta sleeping cabins in the nearest open green or area.
And as St Retford as remembered those lot that had to sleep and eat under a bridge on the weekend of the Queen Jubilee, if they did not do it there benefits would of been stop.[/p][/quote]Your not over keen on the word 'discipline'?
Doesn't bode well for the TUSC's crime and punishment policy then does it (if there is one)?[/p][/quote]Yes there is crime and punishment policy, the word don't bode well with me, I said nothing about the TUSC just remember you was the one who bought it up, before people start saying i done it again, where it seldom is.southy

Alot of the comments made on here I agree with, we should not be treating members of our armed services that have just come back from Afghanistan like this.
Yes "The Tigers", would be use to living in rough conditions, but that would be in the field, and more than likely would not be in a urban situation. They are disciplined, and will do as they are ordered, they may not like it, but they will put up with the hardship, and not ask questions, they will leave that to their senior officers, to argue that out with the MoD. What seems strange is that the troops are not being barracked in such places as Chelsea Barracks, Purbright and other barracks that are close to the capital.
The contract that G4S got should be scrapped, and the government should not be paying them a penny, as they you could argue that they may have breached the contract, but not supplying all the necessary people. The money that was going to be paid to G4S, should go directly to all the members of the armed forces that have been drafted in to do the security for as someone said teflon coe's security shambles.
How many members of the armed forces doing these security jobs have been made redundant and are being kept on to save the hides of the two teflon buddies Seb Coe and Theresa May.

Alot of the comments made on here I agree with, we should not be treating members of our armed services that have just come back from Afghanistan like this.
Yes "The Tigers", would be use to living in rough conditions, but that would be in the field, and more than likely would not be in a urban situation. They are disciplined, and will do as they are ordered, they may not like it, but they will put up with the hardship, and not ask questions, they will leave that to their senior officers, to argue that out with the MoD. What seems strange is that the troops are not being barracked in such places as Chelsea Barracks, Purbright and other barracks that are close to the capital.
The contract that G4S got should be scrapped, and the government should not be paying them a penny, as they you could argue that they may have breached the contract, but not supplying all the necessary people. The money that was going to be paid to G4S, should go directly to all the members of the armed forces that have been drafted in to do the security for as someone said teflon coe's security shambles.
How many members of the armed forces doing these security jobs have been made redundant and are being kept on to save the hides of the two teflon buddies Seb Coe and Theresa May.dave1958

chapelsaint wrote:
Shoong and Townieboy. Soldiers and hard they may very well be, but why should they have to be treated in this way when there are so many living the high life and giving so little back in return?

Think about it.

We didn't know they were needed until a few weeks ago thanks to no-one turning up for G4S security duties, what would you recommend, turfing out all the hotels and putting soldiers in there?

It's only for a couple of weeks, they have backbones so will get on with it.

For once i agree with you Shoong. These soldiers are doing the jobs they are supposed to do. For security reasons alone I suspect putting them in a hotel is folly and they are used to far worse conditions!! They train people to cope with all sorts in the army so I think a couple of weeks in a car park is a walk in the park compared to most of their frontline activity.

I suspect the families are fed up with leave being cancelled and quite rightly but would they rather there be some huge terrorist attack? I think not. that's what happens when you are in a front line service like this. I hope the government do give some recognition though to the whole army who have bailed them out of a whole lot of trouble and G4 are made to perhaps hand over some of their money to the armed forces !!

Noone forces anyone into the services, people go into it knowing that they could be put in danger, be in severe conditions etc. I admire anyone who has the bottle to do that but their job is to protect this country and they are doing just that. Stop moaning!

You muppet.

The job of soldiers is to protect the nation, not bail out a security firm! I know that soldiers are used to worse conditions but that is not excuse to treat them as badly as they are being treated.

The government are a bloody joke allowing such a farce to occur.

My question would be, where were the G4S security personal going to be sleeping?

[quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]chapelsaint[/bold] wrote:
Shoong and Townieboy. Soldiers and hard they may very well be, but why should they have to be treated in this way when there are so many living the high life and giving so little back in return?[/p][/quote]Think about it.
We didn't know they were needed until a few weeks ago thanks to no-one turning up for G4S security duties, what would you recommend, turfing out all the hotels and putting soldiers in there?
It's only for a couple of weeks, they have backbones so will get on with it.[/p][/quote]For once i agree with you Shoong. These soldiers are doing the jobs they are supposed to do. For security reasons alone I suspect putting them in a hotel is folly and they are used to far worse conditions!! They train people to cope with all sorts in the army so I think a couple of weeks in a car park is a walk in the park compared to most of their frontline activity.
I suspect the families are fed up with leave being cancelled and quite rightly but would they rather there be some huge terrorist attack? I think not. that's what happens when you are in a front line service like this. I hope the government do give some recognition though to the whole army who have bailed them out of a whole lot of trouble and G4 are made to perhaps hand over some of their money to the armed forces !!
Noone forces anyone into the services, people go into it knowing that they could be put in danger, be in severe conditions etc. I admire anyone who has the bottle to do that but their job is to protect this country and they are doing just that. Stop moaning![/p][/quote]You muppet.
The job of soldiers is to protect the nation, not bail out a security firm! I know that soldiers are used to worse conditions but that is not excuse to treat them as badly as they are being treated.
The government are a bloody joke allowing such a farce to occur.
My question would be, where were the G4S security personal going to be sleeping?Taskforce 141

To be in this country is far better than being elsewhere fighting and getting shot at but not at the cost of cancelled leave. I recommend a special Olympic medal to be issued to these soldiers. The G4S staff who didn't bother to come to work after the training they had - can all go to hell and should be charged for their crimes, then deported as a minimum.

To be in this country is far better than being elsewhere fighting and getting shot at but not at the cost of cancelled leave. I recommend a special Olympic medal to be issued to these soldiers. The G4S staff who didn't bother to come to work after the training they had - can all go to hell and should be charged for their crimes, then deported as a minimum.The wickedsaint

TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.

They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.

Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.

[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote:
They're soldiers - I'm sure they've seen a lot worse.
TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.[/p][/quote]They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.
Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.Linesman

chapelsaint wrote:
Shoong and Townieboy. Soldiers and hard they may very well be, but why should they have to be treated in this way when there are so many living the high life and giving so little back in return?

Think about it.

We didn't know they were needed until a few weeks ago thanks to no-one turning up for G4S security duties, what would you recommend, turfing out all the hotels and putting soldiers in there?

It's only for a couple of weeks, they have backbones so will get on with it.

So you think it is OK for service personnel to be treated like this because someone else screwed up?

Lord Coe ck-up should have been aware of this security problem months ago, and taken action to see that there was a back-up plan in place - and it it were to include the use of troops, to see that there was proper accommodation for them.

Is this what Cameron was talking about when he said 'We are all in this together.'

[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]chapelsaint[/bold] wrote:
Shoong and Townieboy. Soldiers and hard they may very well be, but why should they have to be treated in this way when there are so many living the high life and giving so little back in return?[/p][/quote]Think about it.
We didn't know they were needed until a few weeks ago thanks to no-one turning up for G4S security duties, what would you recommend, turfing out all the hotels and putting soldiers in there?
It's only for a couple of weeks, they have backbones so will get on with it.[/p][/quote]So you think it is OK for service personnel to be treated like this because someone else screwed up?
Lord Coe ck-up should have been aware of this security problem months ago, and taken action to see that there was a back-up plan in place - and it it were to include the use of troops, to see that there was proper accommodation for them.
Is this what Cameron was talking about when he said 'We are all in this together.'Linesman

[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote:
They're soldiers - I'm sure they've seen a lot worse.
TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.[/p][/quote]They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.
Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.[/p][/quote]It was in the news quite a lot at the time. Have a look for yourself:
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04
/jubilee-pageant-une
mployedSt Retford

A National Disgrace, some of your comments are an insult to our boys, who do everything they can to protect us. Shoong your comments are offensive to every servicemans family, why dont you volunteer your services for the next couple of weeks and live in this damp stinking car park, or go up and manage a food source for these men and that goes for St Retford also.

A National Disgrace, some of your comments are an insult to our boys, who do everything they can to protect us. Shoong your comments are offensive to every servicemans family, why dont you volunteer your services for the next couple of weeks and live in this damp stinking car park, or go up and manage a food source for these men and that goes for St Retford also.999medic

999medic wrote:
A National Disgrace, some of your comments are an insult to our boys, who do everything they can to protect us. Shoong your comments are offensive to every servicemans family, why dont you volunteer your services for the next couple of weeks and live in this damp stinking car park, or go up and manage a food source for these men and that goes for St Retford also.

Why does everything on the internet have to be a 'national disgrace'? In the scheme of all the horrors happening in the world this really isn't that bad. I should imagine the soldiers themselves will probably look back on it with a smile and think "Well that was a bit weird, wasn't it?".

[quote][p][bold]999medic[/bold] wrote:
A National Disgrace, some of your comments are an insult to our boys, who do everything they can to protect us. Shoong your comments are offensive to every servicemans family, why dont you volunteer your services for the next couple of weeks and live in this damp stinking car park, or go up and manage a food source for these men and that goes for St Retford also.[/p][/quote]Why does everything on the internet have to be a 'national disgrace'? In the scheme of all the horrors happening in the world this really isn't that bad. I should imagine the soldiers themselves will probably look back on it with a smile and think "Well that was a bit weird, wasn't it?".St Retford

999medic wrote:
A National Disgrace, some of your comments are an insult to our boys, who do everything they can to protect us. Shoong your comments are offensive to every servicemans family, why dont you volunteer your services for the next couple of weeks and live in this damp stinking car park, or go up and manage a food source for these men and that goes for St Retford also.

I ask your forgiveness for accusing of them of having a backbone and being there when needed. They shouldn't be there but they are.

It's worth remembering that G4S couldn't force anyone they trained to actually show up for the Olympics.

[quote][p][bold]999medic[/bold] wrote:
A National Disgrace, some of your comments are an insult to our boys, who do everything they can to protect us. Shoong your comments are offensive to every servicemans family, why dont you volunteer your services for the next couple of weeks and live in this damp stinking car park, or go up and manage a food source for these men and that goes for St Retford also.[/p][/quote]I ask your forgiveness for accusing of them of having a backbone and being there when needed. They shouldn't be there but they are.
It's worth remembering that G4S couldn't force anyone they trained to actually show up for the Olympics.Shoong

SotonGreen wrote:
Soldiers can and will take the conditions and yes will do so without complaint because they have discipline.

The question is why are we making them ? In a war zone there are good reasons why accomodation has to be basic and creature comforts limited. In London the capital city of one of the wealthiest nations on earth, there is simply no need and it is as others have said simply a disgrace.

Agree with you, it might make good training, (not over keen on the word discipline because it can mean brainwashing) but there is no need for it, they could of put up porta sleeping cabins in the nearest open green or area.
And as St Retford as remembered those lot that had to sleep and eat under a bridge on the weekend of the Queen Jubilee, if they did not do it there benefits would of been stop.

Your not over keen on the word 'discipline'?

Doesn't bode well for the TUSC's crime and punishment policy then does it (if there is one)?

Yes there is crime and punishment policy, the word don't bode well with me, I said nothing about the TUSC just remember you was the one who bought it up, before people start saying i done it again, where it seldom is.

I still can't get over that you dislike the word 'discipline', I see kids everyday that could do with a good dose of it from parents! There's nothing wrong with the word or it's intention, 'brainwashing' is brainwashing, simple as, it's completely different..?

So I was brainwashed throughout my childhood and teens by my parents then? Yes Peter.

[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote:
Soldiers can and will take the conditions and yes will do so without complaint because they have discipline.
The question is why are we making them ? In a war zone there are good reasons why accomodation has to be basic and creature comforts limited. In London the capital city of one of the wealthiest nations on earth, there is simply no need and it is as others have said simply a disgrace.[/p][/quote]Agree with you, it might make good training, (not over keen on the word discipline because it can mean brainwashing) but there is no need for it, they could of put up porta sleeping cabins in the nearest open green or area.
And as St Retford as remembered those lot that had to sleep and eat under a bridge on the weekend of the Queen Jubilee, if they did not do it there benefits would of been stop.[/p][/quote]Your not over keen on the word 'discipline'?
Doesn't bode well for the TUSC's crime and punishment policy then does it (if there is one)?[/p][/quote]Yes there is crime and punishment policy, the word don't bode well with me, I said nothing about the TUSC just remember you was the one who bought it up, before people start saying i done it again, where it seldom is.[/p][/quote]I still can't get over that you dislike the word 'discipline', I see kids everyday that could do with a good dose of it from parents! There's nothing wrong with the word or it's intention, 'brainwashing' is brainwashing, simple as, it's completely different..?
So I was brainwashed throughout my childhood and teens by my parents then? Yes Peter.Shoong

Compared with the Gurkha's current temporary accommodation and forward response operations center for the limpics on one of the Army's bases here in Hampshire, this IS luxury, a drafty old railway wagon repair 'shed' (oversize Quonset hut) without ends, let alone doors, with 12x12 tents for the officers and a 'Heras' plus board fence to keep the 'Ramblers' out is all they've got!

Still they could have those lovely steel portacabin's the plod fed were whinging about down in Dorset, with soft beds in individual/twin rooms...

Compared with the Gurkha's current temporary accommodation and forward response operations center for the limpics on one of the Army's bases here in Hampshire, this IS luxury, a drafty old railway wagon repair 'shed' (oversize Quonset hut) without ends, let alone doors, with 12x12 tents for the officers and a 'Heras' plus board fence to keep the 'Ramblers' out is all they've got!
Still they could have those lovely steel portacabin's the plod fed were whinging about down in Dorset, with soft beds in individual/twin rooms...Niel

TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.

They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.

Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.

It happened Lines but it was not Security that was sleeping under bridges, it was street cleaners bought in to clean up London on a Jubilee weekend, they had to do it or lose there benefits not even a meal was supplied.

[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote:
They're soldiers - I'm sure they've seen a lot worse.
TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.[/p][/quote]They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.
Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.[/p][/quote]It happened Lines but it was not Security that was sleeping under bridges, it was street cleaners bought in to clean up London on a Jubilee weekend, they had to do it or lose there benefits not even a meal was supplied.southy

TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.

They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.

Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.

It happened Lines but it was not Security that was sleeping under bridges, it was street cleaners bought in to clean up London on a Jubilee weekend, they had to do it or lose there benefits not even a meal was supplied.

I did hear rumours of this, can you let us know the source of this info? A link to it would be good.

[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote:
They're soldiers - I'm sure they've seen a lot worse.
TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.[/p][/quote]They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.
Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.[/p][/quote]It happened Lines but it was not Security that was sleeping under bridges, it was street cleaners bought in to clean up London on a Jubilee weekend, they had to do it or lose there benefits not even a meal was supplied.[/p][/quote]I did hear rumours of this, can you let us know the source of this info? A link to it would be good.Shoong

SotonGreen wrote:
Soldiers can and will take the conditions and yes will do so without complaint because they have discipline.

The question is why are we making them ? In a war zone there are good reasons why accomodation has to be basic and creature comforts limited. In London the capital city of one of the wealthiest nations on earth, there is simply no need and it is as others have said simply a disgrace.

Agree with you, it might make good training, (not over keen on the word discipline because it can mean brainwashing) but there is no need for it, they could of put up porta sleeping cabins in the nearest open green or area.
And as St Retford as remembered those lot that had to sleep and eat under a bridge on the weekend of the Queen Jubilee, if they did not do it there benefits would of been stop.

Your not over keen on the word 'discipline'?

Doesn't bode well for the TUSC's crime and punishment policy then does it (if there is one)?

Yes there is crime and punishment policy, the word don't bode well with me, I said nothing about the TUSC just remember you was the one who bought it up, before people start saying i done it again, where it seldom is.

I still can't get over that you dislike the word 'discipline', I see kids everyday that could do with a good dose of it from parents! There's nothing wrong with the word or it's intention, 'brainwashing' is brainwashing, simple as, it's completely different..?

So I was brainwashed throughout my childhood and teens by my parents then? Yes Peter.

No you was trained, with rewards and punishment.

[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote:
Soldiers can and will take the conditions and yes will do so without complaint because they have discipline.
The question is why are we making them ? In a war zone there are good reasons why accomodation has to be basic and creature comforts limited. In London the capital city of one of the wealthiest nations on earth, there is simply no need and it is as others have said simply a disgrace.[/p][/quote]Agree with you, it might make good training, (not over keen on the word discipline because it can mean brainwashing) but there is no need for it, they could of put up porta sleeping cabins in the nearest open green or area.
And as St Retford as remembered those lot that had to sleep and eat under a bridge on the weekend of the Queen Jubilee, if they did not do it there benefits would of been stop.[/p][/quote]Your not over keen on the word 'discipline'?
Doesn't bode well for the TUSC's crime and punishment policy then does it (if there is one)?[/p][/quote]Yes there is crime and punishment policy, the word don't bode well with me, I said nothing about the TUSC just remember you was the one who bought it up, before people start saying i done it again, where it seldom is.[/p][/quote]I still can't get over that you dislike the word 'discipline', I see kids everyday that could do with a good dose of it from parents! There's nothing wrong with the word or it's intention, 'brainwashing' is brainwashing, simple as, it's completely different..?
So I was brainwashed throughout my childhood and teens by my parents then? Yes Peter.[/p][/quote]No you was trained, with rewards and punishment.southy

TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.

They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.

Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.

It happened Lines but it was not Security that was sleeping under bridges, it was street cleaners bought in to clean up London on a Jubilee weekend, they had to do it or lose there benefits not even a meal was supplied.

I did hear rumours of this, can you let us know the source of this info? A link to it would be good.

Thats probably the end of southys contribution here, as he rarely provides the info to back up his claims. He will pop up on another post near you soon.

[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote:
They're soldiers - I'm sure they've seen a lot worse.
TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.[/p][/quote]They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.
Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.[/p][/quote]It happened Lines but it was not Security that was sleeping under bridges, it was street cleaners bought in to clean up London on a Jubilee weekend, they had to do it or lose there benefits not even a meal was supplied.[/p][/quote]I did hear rumours of this, can you let us know the source of this info? A link to it would be good.[/p][/quote]Thats probably the end of southys contribution here, as he rarely provides the info to back up his claims. He will pop up on another post near you soon.hulla baloo

TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.

They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.

Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.

It happened Lines but it was not Security that was sleeping under bridges, it was street cleaners bought in to clean up London on a Jubilee weekend, they had to do it or lose there benefits not even a meal was supplied.

I did hear rumours of this, can you let us know the source of this info? A link to it would be good.

It was on tv, radio, news papers even this one, internet, it was covered by all types of news media, its not a rumour it was publish fact in the media.

[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote:
They're soldiers - I'm sure they've seen a lot worse.
TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.[/p][/quote]They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.
Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.[/p][/quote]It happened Lines but it was not Security that was sleeping under bridges, it was street cleaners bought in to clean up London on a Jubilee weekend, they had to do it or lose there benefits not even a meal was supplied.[/p][/quote]I did hear rumours of this, can you let us know the source of this info? A link to it would be good.[/p][/quote]It was on tv, radio, news papers even this one, internet, it was covered by all types of news media, its not a rumour it was publish fact in the media.southy

TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.

They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.

Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.

It happened Lines but it was not Security that was sleeping under bridges, it was street cleaners bought in to clean up London on a Jubilee weekend, they had to do it or lose there benefits not even a meal was supplied.

I did hear rumours of this, can you let us know the source of this info? A link to it would be good.

Thats probably the end of southys contribution here, as he rarely provides the info to back up his claims. He will pop up on another post near you soon.

I posted a link earlier!

[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote:
They're soldiers - I'm sure they've seen a lot worse.
TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.[/p][/quote]They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.
Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.[/p][/quote]It happened Lines but it was not Security that was sleeping under bridges, it was street cleaners bought in to clean up London on a Jubilee weekend, they had to do it or lose there benefits not even a meal was supplied.[/p][/quote]I did hear rumours of this, can you let us know the source of this info? A link to it would be good.[/p][/quote]Thats probably the end of southys contribution here, as he rarely provides the info to back up his claims. He will pop up on another post near you soon.[/p][/quote]I posted a link earlier!St Retford

TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.

They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.

Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.

It happened Lines but it was not Security that was sleeping under bridges, it was street cleaners bought in to clean up London on a Jubilee weekend, they had to do it or lose there benefits not even a meal was supplied.

I did hear rumours of this, can you let us know the source of this info? A link to it would be good.

It was on tv, radio, news papers even this one, internet, it was covered by all types of news media, its not a rumour it was publish fact in the media.

No I meant it was a rumour for me I beg your pardon, because I had not seen anything about it.

No link then, guess I'll just have to believe you unquestioningly again.

[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote:
They're soldiers - I'm sure they've seen a lot worse.
TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.[/p][/quote]They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.
Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.[/p][/quote]It happened Lines but it was not Security that was sleeping under bridges, it was street cleaners bought in to clean up London on a Jubilee weekend, they had to do it or lose there benefits not even a meal was supplied.[/p][/quote]I did hear rumours of this, can you let us know the source of this info? A link to it would be good.[/p][/quote]It was on tv, radio, news papers even this one, internet, it was covered by all types of news media, its not a rumour it was publish fact in the media.[/p][/quote]No I meant it was a rumour for me I beg your pardon, because I had not seen anything about it.
No link then, guess I'll just have to believe you unquestioningly again.Shoong

TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.

They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.

Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.

It happened Lines but it was not Security that was sleeping under bridges, it was street cleaners bought in to clean up London on a Jubilee weekend, they had to do it or lose there benefits not even a meal was supplied.

I did hear rumours of this, can you let us know the source of this info? A link to it would be good.

It was on tv, radio, news papers even this one, internet, it was covered by all types of news media, its not a rumour it was publish fact in the media.

No I meant it was a rumour for me I beg your pardon, because I had not seen anything about it.

No link then, guess I'll just have to believe you unquestioningly again.

btw, I love the fact that the media is unreliable when it is convenient for yourself but when it isn't it's somehow propaganda or is 'hacked'.

[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote:
They're soldiers - I'm sure they've seen a lot worse.
TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.[/p][/quote]They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.
Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.[/p][/quote]It happened Lines but it was not Security that was sleeping under bridges, it was street cleaners bought in to clean up London on a Jubilee weekend, they had to do it or lose there benefits not even a meal was supplied.[/p][/quote]I did hear rumours of this, can you let us know the source of this info? A link to it would be good.[/p][/quote]It was on tv, radio, news papers even this one, internet, it was covered by all types of news media, its not a rumour it was publish fact in the media.[/p][/quote]No I meant it was a rumour for me I beg your pardon, because I had not seen anything about it.
No link then, guess I'll just have to believe you unquestioningly again.[/p][/quote]btw, I love the fact that the media is unreliable when it is convenient for yourself but when it isn't it's somehow propaganda or is 'hacked'.Shoong

TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.

They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.

Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.

It happened Lines but it was not Security that was sleeping under bridges, it was street cleaners bought in to clean up London on a Jubilee weekend, they had to do it or lose there benefits not even a meal was supplied.

I did hear rumours of this, can you let us know the source of this info? A link to it would be good.

It was on tv, radio, news papers even this one, internet, it was covered by all types of news media, its not a rumour it was publish fact in the media.

No I meant it was a rumour for me I beg your pardon, because I had not seen anything about it.

No link then, guess I'll just have to believe you unquestioningly again.

btw, I love the fact that the media is unreliable when it is convenient for yourself but when it isn't it's somehow propaganda or is 'hacked'.

It was in the Daily Nationals Papers, it was on the Radio and on Tv and also most Internet news at the time.
Theres a fair bit about on FB and other sites like that one, go and research it and make up your own mind weather if it is true or not, I not here to tell you how you think, just pointing you in the right direction.

[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote:
They're soldiers - I'm sure they've seen a lot worse.
TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.[/p][/quote]They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.
Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.[/p][/quote]It happened Lines but it was not Security that was sleeping under bridges, it was street cleaners bought in to clean up London on a Jubilee weekend, they had to do it or lose there benefits not even a meal was supplied.[/p][/quote]I did hear rumours of this, can you let us know the source of this info? A link to it would be good.[/p][/quote]It was on tv, radio, news papers even this one, internet, it was covered by all types of news media, its not a rumour it was publish fact in the media.[/p][/quote]No I meant it was a rumour for me I beg your pardon, because I had not seen anything about it.
No link then, guess I'll just have to believe you unquestioningly again.[/p][/quote]btw, I love the fact that the media is unreliable when it is convenient for yourself but when it isn't it's somehow propaganda or is 'hacked'.[/p][/quote]It was in the Daily Nationals Papers, it was on the Radio and on Tv and also most Internet news at the time.
Theres a fair bit about on FB and other sites like that one, go and research it and make up your own mind weather if it is true or not, I not here to tell you how you think, just pointing you in the right direction.southy

chapelsaint wrote:
Shoong and Townieboy. Soldiers and hard they may very well be, but why should they have to be treated in this way when there are so many living the high life and giving so little back in return?

Think about it.

We didn't know they were needed until a few weeks ago thanks to no-one turning up for G4S security duties, what would you recommend, turfing out all the hotels and putting soldiers in there?

It's only for a couple of weeks, they have backbones so will get on with it.

For once i agree with you Shoong. These soldiers are doing the jobs they are supposed to do. For security reasons alone I suspect putting them in a hotel is folly and they are used to far worse conditions!! They train people to cope with all sorts in the army so I think a couple of weeks in a car park is a walk in the park compared to most of their frontline activity.

I suspect the families are fed up with leave being cancelled and quite rightly but would they rather there be some huge terrorist attack? I think not. that's what happens when you are in a front line service like this. I hope the government do give some recognition though to the whole army who have bailed them out of a whole lot of trouble and G4 are made to perhaps hand over some of their money to the armed forces !!

Noone forces anyone into the services, people go into it knowing that they could be put in danger, be in severe conditions etc. I admire anyone who has the bottle to do that but their job is to protect this country and they are doing just that. Stop moaning!

You muppet.

The job of soldiers is to protect the nation, not bail out a security firm! I know that soldiers are used to worse conditions but that is not excuse to treat them as badly as they are being treated.

The government are a bloody joke allowing such a farce to occur.

My question would be, where were the G4S security personal going to be sleeping?

I agree, their job isn't to bail out a security firm. but the government decided to take that action it isn't on the orders of G4 is it. And they are protecting the nation (doh) plus the people who are visiting said nation. So I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make unless it's a daily opportunity to call someone a muppet LOL. You've got the wrong end o the stick and jumped to conclusions as per.

Where does it say in the Army contract "we'll put you up in a premier inn" ? although good point about barracks but I supect they are already full perhaps, and this group of soldiers are only a small part of the task force, which already consisted of London based/barracked soldiers.

I agree entirely about the government so go call someone else a muppet and make sure you read people's comments properly eh? some people on here just like to disagree about nothing dear oh dear. And if they can't find anything to disagree about or pick on Southy then they'll look for something that isn't there.

[quote][p][bold]Taskforce 141[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]chapelsaint[/bold] wrote:
Shoong and Townieboy. Soldiers and hard they may very well be, but why should they have to be treated in this way when there are so many living the high life and giving so little back in return?[/p][/quote]Think about it.
We didn't know they were needed until a few weeks ago thanks to no-one turning up for G4S security duties, what would you recommend, turfing out all the hotels and putting soldiers in there?
It's only for a couple of weeks, they have backbones so will get on with it.[/p][/quote]For once i agree with you Shoong. These soldiers are doing the jobs they are supposed to do. For security reasons alone I suspect putting them in a hotel is folly and they are used to far worse conditions!! They train people to cope with all sorts in the army so I think a couple of weeks in a car park is a walk in the park compared to most of their frontline activity.
I suspect the families are fed up with leave being cancelled and quite rightly but would they rather there be some huge terrorist attack? I think not. that's what happens when you are in a front line service like this. I hope the government do give some recognition though to the whole army who have bailed them out of a whole lot of trouble and G4 are made to perhaps hand over some of their money to the armed forces !!
Noone forces anyone into the services, people go into it knowing that they could be put in danger, be in severe conditions etc. I admire anyone who has the bottle to do that but their job is to protect this country and they are doing just that. Stop moaning![/p][/quote]You muppet.
The job of soldiers is to protect the nation, not bail out a security firm! I know that soldiers are used to worse conditions but that is not excuse to treat them as badly as they are being treated.
The government are a bloody joke allowing such a farce to occur.
My question would be, where were the G4S security personal going to be sleeping?[/p][/quote]I agree, their job isn't to bail out a security firm. but the government decided to take that action it isn't on the orders of G4 is it. And they are protecting the nation (doh) plus the people who are visiting said nation. So I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make unless it's a daily opportunity to call someone a muppet LOL. You've got the wrong end o the stick and jumped to conclusions as per.
Where does it say in the Army contract "we'll put you up in a premier inn" ? although good point about barracks but I supect they are already full perhaps, and this group of soldiers are only a small part of the task force, which already consisted of London based/barracked soldiers.
I agree entirely about the government so go call someone else a muppet and make sure you read people's comments properly eh? some people on here just like to disagree about nothing dear oh dear. And if they can't find anything to disagree about or pick on Southy then they'll look for something that isn't there.freemantlegirl2

Shoong wrote:
They are soldiers - they are trained to be hard and can take it. I doubt you'll find them complaining either.

Agreed. Better to be in england than being shot at. Hoiday camp for them.

Bet you would find them complaining, and I bet neither of you know any armed forces who are doing this! . . You have no idea it might be in the UK but same applies they don't see their family they work 12 + hour days and they take a load of mouth that they do not deserve. They are taking all the risks by searching people who have come from all over the world not to mention the gangs and protesters that live in London anyway! I would not call where they are living holiday camps and if you think the picture the echo has published it bad you should see the photos i have from my hubby! Maybe you ought to think before you speak because you are offending people who know best!

[quote][p][bold]townieboy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
They are soldiers - they are trained to be hard and can take it. I doubt you'll find them complaining either.[/p][/quote]Agreed. Better to be in england than being shot at. Hoiday camp for them.[/p][/quote]Bet you would find them complaining, and I bet neither of you know any armed forces who are doing this! . . You have no idea it might be in the UK but same applies they don't see their family they work 12 + hour days and they take a load of mouth that they do not deserve. They are taking all the risks by searching people who have come from all over the world not to mention the gangs and protesters that live in London anyway! I would not call where they are living holiday camps and if you think the picture the echo has published it bad you should see the photos i have from my hubby! Maybe you ought to think before you speak because you are offending people who know best!girl1987

TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.

They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.

Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.

It happened Lines but it was not Security that was sleeping under bridges, it was street cleaners bought in to clean up London on a Jubilee weekend, they had to do it or lose there benefits not even a meal was supplied.

I did hear rumours of this, can you let us know the source of this info? A link to it would be good.

It was on tv, radio, news papers even this one, internet, it was covered by all types of news media, its not a rumour it was publish fact in the media.

No I meant it was a rumour for me I beg your pardon, because I had not seen anything about it.

No link then, guess I'll just have to believe you unquestioningly again.

btw, I love the fact that the media is unreliable when it is convenient for yourself but when it isn't it's somehow propaganda or is 'hacked'.

It was in the Daily Nationals Papers, it was on the Radio and on Tv and also most Internet news at the time.
Theres a fair bit about on FB and other sites like that one, go and research it and make up your own mind weather if it is true or not, I not here to tell you how you think, just pointing you in the right direction.

Must have missed it, I do believe it but we are talking about the Army troops here. Can't believe these homeless people were forced into it, sorry.

Facebook? Yes, because Facebook is completely trust worthy. Loving your Oaklands stall pic with Kev shuffling along with a Socialist rag behind the two young girls btw.

[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote:
They're soldiers - I'm sure they've seen a lot worse.
TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.[/p][/quote]They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.
Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.[/p][/quote]It happened Lines but it was not Security that was sleeping under bridges, it was street cleaners bought in to clean up London on a Jubilee weekend, they had to do it or lose there benefits not even a meal was supplied.[/p][/quote]I did hear rumours of this, can you let us know the source of this info? A link to it would be good.[/p][/quote]It was on tv, radio, news papers even this one, internet, it was covered by all types of news media, its not a rumour it was publish fact in the media.[/p][/quote]No I meant it was a rumour for me I beg your pardon, because I had not seen anything about it.
No link then, guess I'll just have to believe you unquestioningly again.[/p][/quote]btw, I love the fact that the media is unreliable when it is convenient for yourself but when it isn't it's somehow propaganda or is 'hacked'.[/p][/quote]It was in the Daily Nationals Papers, it was on the Radio and on Tv and also most Internet news at the time.
Theres a fair bit about on FB and other sites like that one, go and research it and make up your own mind weather if it is true or not, I not here to tell you how you think, just pointing you in the right direction.[/p][/quote]Must have missed it, I do believe it but we are talking about the Army troops here. Can't believe these homeless people were forced into it, sorry.
Facebook? Yes, because Facebook is completely trust worthy. Loving your Oaklands stall pic with Kev shuffling along with a Socialist rag behind the two young girls btw.Shoong

Shoong wrote:
They are soldiers - they are trained to be hard and can take it. I doubt you'll find them complaining either.

Agreed. Better to be in england than being shot at. Hoiday camp for them.

Bet you would find them complaining, and I bet neither of you know any armed forces who are doing this! . . You have no idea it might be in the UK but same applies they don't see their family they work 12 + hour days and they take a load of mouth that they do not deserve. They are taking all the risks by searching people who have come from all over the world not to mention the gangs and protesters that live in London anyway! I would not call where they are living holiday camps and if you think the picture the echo has published it bad you should see the photos i have from my hubby! Maybe you ought to think before you speak because you are offending people who know best!

Sorry I was under the impression that part of the contract or whatever it is when you sign up with the Armed Forces is that you 'go where you are sent'. Surely marrying a member of the Armed Forces you understood that.

[quote][p][bold]girl1987[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]townieboy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
They are soldiers - they are trained to be hard and can take it. I doubt you'll find them complaining either.[/p][/quote]Agreed. Better to be in england than being shot at. Hoiday camp for them.[/p][/quote]Bet you would find them complaining, and I bet neither of you know any armed forces who are doing this! . . You have no idea it might be in the UK but same applies they don't see their family they work 12 + hour days and they take a load of mouth that they do not deserve. They are taking all the risks by searching people who have come from all over the world not to mention the gangs and protesters that live in London anyway! I would not call where they are living holiday camps and if you think the picture the echo has published it bad you should see the photos i have from my hubby! Maybe you ought to think before you speak because you are offending people who know best![/p][/quote]Sorry I was under the impression that part of the contract or whatever it is when you sign up with the Armed Forces is that you 'go where you are sent'. Surely marrying a member of the Armed Forces you understood that.Shoong

Shoong wrote:
They are soldiers - they are trained to be hard and can take it. I doubt you'll find them complaining either.

Agreed. Better to be in england than being shot at. Hoiday camp for them.

Bet you would find them complaining, and I bet neither of you know any armed forces who are doing this! . . You have no idea it might be in the UK but same applies they don't see their family they work 12 + hour days and they take a load of mouth that they do not deserve. They are taking all the risks by searching people who have come from all over the world not to mention the gangs and protesters that live in London anyway! I would not call where they are living holiday camps and if you think the picture the echo has published it bad you should see the photos i have from my hubby! Maybe you ought to think before you speak because you are offending people who know best!

Sorry I was under the impression that part of the contract or whatever it is when you sign up with the Armed Forces is that you 'go where you are sent'. Surely marrying a member of the Armed Forces you understood that.

See there you go again.... assuming! My partner left the forces 2 years ago but because of the mess he was called up . So there he is trying to make the best of the situation and you are mugging them off!

[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]girl1987[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]townieboy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
They are soldiers - they are trained to be hard and can take it. I doubt you'll find them complaining either.[/p][/quote]Agreed. Better to be in england than being shot at. Hoiday camp for them.[/p][/quote]Bet you would find them complaining, and I bet neither of you know any armed forces who are doing this! . . You have no idea it might be in the UK but same applies they don't see their family they work 12 + hour days and they take a load of mouth that they do not deserve. They are taking all the risks by searching people who have come from all over the world not to mention the gangs and protesters that live in London anyway! I would not call where they are living holiday camps and if you think the picture the echo has published it bad you should see the photos i have from my hubby! Maybe you ought to think before you speak because you are offending people who know best![/p][/quote]Sorry I was under the impression that part of the contract or whatever it is when you sign up with the Armed Forces is that you 'go where you are sent'. Surely marrying a member of the Armed Forces you understood that.[/p][/quote]See there you go again.... assuming! My partner left the forces 2 years ago but because of the mess he was called up . So there he is trying to make the best of the situation and you are mugging them off!girl1987

TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.

They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.

Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.

It happened Lines but it was not Security that was sleeping under bridges, it was street cleaners bought in to clean up London on a Jubilee weekend, they had to do it or lose there benefits not even a meal was supplied.

I did hear rumours of this, can you let us know the source of this info? A link to it would be good.

It was on tv, radio, news papers even this one, internet, it was covered by all types of news media, its not a rumour it was publish fact in the media.

No I meant it was a rumour for me I beg your pardon, because I had not seen anything about it.

No link then, guess I'll just have to believe you unquestioningly again.

btw, I love the fact that the media is unreliable when it is convenient for yourself but when it isn't it's somehow propaganda or is 'hacked'.

It was in the Daily Nationals Papers, it was on the Radio and on Tv and also most Internet news at the time.
Theres a fair bit about on FB and other sites like that one, go and research it and make up your own mind weather if it is true or not, I not here to tell you how you think, just pointing you in the right direction.

So you still cant, wont or refuse to provide back up to the statements you make, and not for the 1st time, is becoming a regular occurence.

[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote:
They're soldiers - I'm sure they've seen a lot worse.
TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.[/p][/quote]They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.
Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.[/p][/quote]It happened Lines but it was not Security that was sleeping under bridges, it was street cleaners bought in to clean up London on a Jubilee weekend, they had to do it or lose there benefits not even a meal was supplied.[/p][/quote]I did hear rumours of this, can you let us know the source of this info? A link to it would be good.[/p][/quote]It was on tv, radio, news papers even this one, internet, it was covered by all types of news media, its not a rumour it was publish fact in the media.[/p][/quote]No I meant it was a rumour for me I beg your pardon, because I had not seen anything about it.
No link then, guess I'll just have to believe you unquestioningly again.[/p][/quote]btw, I love the fact that the media is unreliable when it is convenient for yourself but when it isn't it's somehow propaganda or is 'hacked'.[/p][/quote]It was in the Daily Nationals Papers, it was on the Radio and on Tv and also most Internet news at the time.
Theres a fair bit about on FB and other sites like that one, go and research it and make up your own mind weather if it is true or not, I not here to tell you how you think, just pointing you in the right direction.[/p][/quote]So you still cant, wont or refuse to provide back up to the statements you make, and not for the 1st time, is becoming a regular occurence.hulla baloo

Shoong wrote:
They are soldiers - they are trained to be hard and can take it. I doubt you'll find them complaining either.

Agreed. Better to be in england than being shot at. Hoiday camp for them.

Bet you would find them complaining, and I bet neither of you know any armed forces who are doing this! . . You have no idea it might be in the UK but same applies they don't see their family they work 12 + hour days and they take a load of mouth that they do not deserve. They are taking all the risks by searching people who have come from all over the world not to mention the gangs and protesters that live in London anyway! I would not call where they are living holiday camps and if you think the picture the echo has published it bad you should see the photos i have from my hubby! Maybe you ought to think before you speak because you are offending people who know best!

Sorry I was under the impression that part of the contract or whatever it is when you sign up with the Armed Forces is that you 'go where you are sent'. Surely marrying a member of the Armed Forces you understood that.

See there you go again.... assuming! My partner left the forces 2 years ago but because of the mess he was called up . So there he is trying to make the best of the situation and you are mugging them off!

How do you mean, 'called up'? If he's not in the army any more then presumably it was more a case of him being offered a few quid in exchange for a couple of week's work?

I'm sure it's not a laugh a minute but they've all chosen to be there, one way or another.

[quote][p][bold]girl1987[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]girl1987[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]townieboy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
They are soldiers - they are trained to be hard and can take it. I doubt you'll find them complaining either.[/p][/quote]Agreed. Better to be in england than being shot at. Hoiday camp for them.[/p][/quote]Bet you would find them complaining, and I bet neither of you know any armed forces who are doing this! . . You have no idea it might be in the UK but same applies they don't see their family they work 12 + hour days and they take a load of mouth that they do not deserve. They are taking all the risks by searching people who have come from all over the world not to mention the gangs and protesters that live in London anyway! I would not call where they are living holiday camps and if you think the picture the echo has published it bad you should see the photos i have from my hubby! Maybe you ought to think before you speak because you are offending people who know best![/p][/quote]Sorry I was under the impression that part of the contract or whatever it is when you sign up with the Armed Forces is that you 'go where you are sent'. Surely marrying a member of the Armed Forces you understood that.[/p][/quote]See there you go again.... assuming! My partner left the forces 2 years ago but because of the mess he was called up . So there he is trying to make the best of the situation and you are mugging them off![/p][/quote]How do you mean, 'called up'? If he's not in the army any more then presumably it was more a case of him being offered a few quid in exchange for a couple of week's work?
I'm sure it's not a laugh a minute but they've all chosen to be there, one way or another.St Retford

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Sometimes the words and actions of some people and Governments in this country sicken me to the stomach.
.
This country treats &quot;hero's" like second class citizens.
.
It treats its elderly, disabled and the less fortunate as if they were not a part of its future or a survivor of its past.
.
We treat our law enforcers with such contempt that it suprises me that at times we have any prepared to carry on with the job.
.
Yet we fail to punish finacial institution employers and employees who continually abuse what "powers" they are enriched with ....... and re-elect those who fail time after time to "run" our Country.
.
These troops were not brought in as a contingency ....... but to save the skin of a useless and failed Home Secretary and her pathetic schoolboy helpers.

LR is absolutely spot on.

Just because professional people from all three services are trained to put up with difficult conditions without moaning, should not mean that they should be treated in such a disgraceful manner.

Soldiers deserve support and respect of the nation, whoever is responsible for this fiasco should be condemned without any reservation.

Why out of touch arrogant posh boys and their poster lady at Home office who used to make opportunistic noises in favour of soldiers when in opposition are now themselves sleeping in comfortable beds at the expense of our nation and those who are risking their lives for our security are being treated like this???

John Denham is on right track; asking for enquiry, but that will only kick this shameful scandal into long grass... Nation should be supporting these soldiers and demanding immediate action NOW.

Why not put them in hotels and make G4S pay the bill?

[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote:
Sometimes the words and actions of some people and Governments in this country sicken me to the stomach.
.
This country treats "hero's" like second class citizens.
.
It treats its elderly, disabled and the less fortunate as if they were not a part of its future or a survivor of its past.
.
We treat our law enforcers with such contempt that it suprises me that at times we have any prepared to carry on with the job.
.
Yet we fail to punish finacial institution employers and employees who continually abuse what "powers" they are enriched with ....... and re-elect those who fail time after time to "run" our Country.
.
These troops were not brought in as a contingency ....... but to save the skin of a useless and failed Home Secretary and her pathetic schoolboy helpers.[/p][/quote]LR is absolutely spot on.
Just because professional people from all three services are trained to put up with difficult conditions without moaning, should not mean that they should be treated in such a disgraceful manner.
Soldiers deserve support and respect of the nation, whoever is responsible for this fiasco should be condemned without any reservation.
Why out of touch arrogant posh boys and their poster lady at Home office who used to make opportunistic noises in favour of soldiers when in opposition are now themselves sleeping in comfortable beds at the expense of our nation and those who are risking their lives for our security are being treated like this???
John Denham is on right track; asking for enquiry, but that will only kick this shameful scandal into long grass... Nation should be supporting these soldiers and demanding immediate action NOW.
Why not put them in hotels and make G4S pay the bill?Paramjit Bahia

TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.

They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.

Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.

It happened Lines but it was not Security that was sleeping under bridges, it was street cleaners bought in to clean up London on a Jubilee weekend, they had to do it or lose there benefits not even a meal was supplied.

I did hear rumours of this, can you let us know the source of this info? A link to it would be good.

It was on tv, radio, news papers even this one, internet, it was covered by all types of news media, its not a rumour it was publish fact in the media.

No I meant it was a rumour for me I beg your pardon, because I had not seen anything about it.

No link then, guess I'll just have to believe you unquestioningly again.

btw, I love the fact that the media is unreliable when it is convenient for yourself but when it isn't it's somehow propaganda or is 'hacked'.

It was in the Daily Nationals Papers, it was on the Radio and on Tv and also most Internet news at the time.
Theres a fair bit about on FB and other sites like that one, go and research it and make up your own mind weather if it is true or not, I not here to tell you how you think, just pointing you in the right direction.

So you still cant, wont or refuse to provide back up to the statements you make, and not for the 1st time, is becoming a regular occurence.

.. what do you mean 'becoming'?

It's always been so.

This is the third time I have now put this challenge to southy - bet he just ignores it like the last two times.

Here goes: -

Here's my very easy challenge: -
At 3:14pm Wed 18 Jul 12 you said: -
“Was not a blunder Georgem it was a direct copy and paste from his works, check him up.”

Now, if you were able to copy and paste ‘his works’ from the web as easily as that, you will be able to share with us all the URL for this website.

That will clear up all this once and for all, won’t it?

[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote:
They're soldiers - I'm sure they've seen a lot worse.
TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.[/p][/quote]They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.
Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.[/p][/quote]It happened Lines but it was not Security that was sleeping under bridges, it was street cleaners bought in to clean up London on a Jubilee weekend, they had to do it or lose there benefits not even a meal was supplied.[/p][/quote]I did hear rumours of this, can you let us know the source of this info? A link to it would be good.[/p][/quote]It was on tv, radio, news papers even this one, internet, it was covered by all types of news media, its not a rumour it was publish fact in the media.[/p][/quote]No I meant it was a rumour for me I beg your pardon, because I had not seen anything about it.
No link then, guess I'll just have to believe you unquestioningly again.[/p][/quote]btw, I love the fact that the media is unreliable when it is convenient for yourself but when it isn't it's somehow propaganda or is 'hacked'.[/p][/quote]It was in the Daily Nationals Papers, it was on the Radio and on Tv and also most Internet news at the time.
Theres a fair bit about on FB and other sites like that one, go and research it and make up your own mind weather if it is true or not, I not here to tell you how you think, just pointing you in the right direction.[/p][/quote]So you still cant, wont or refuse to provide back up to the statements you make, and not for the 1st time, is becoming a regular occurence.[/p][/quote].. what do you mean 'becoming'?
It's always been so.
This is the third time I have now put this challenge to southy - bet he just ignores it like the last two times.
Here goes: -
Here's my very easy challenge: -
At 3:14pm Wed 18 Jul 12 you said: -
“Was not a blunder Georgem it was a direct copy and paste from his works, check him up.”
Now, if you were able to copy and paste ‘his works’ from the web as easily as that, you will be able to share with us all the URL for this website.
That will clear up all this once and for all, won’t it?freefinker

999medic wrote:
A National Disgrace, some of your comments are an insult to our boys, who do everything they can to protect us. Shoong your comments are offensive to every servicemans family, why dont you volunteer your services for the next couple of weeks and live in this damp stinking car park, or go up and manage a food source for these men and that goes for St Retford also.

Thanks for posting few truths.

It is easy for those on this website who are virtually full timer 'Key boarders' to keep on posting their usual stuff, because more than likely they have no idea of how others think. Because such brats tend to live in world of thier own

[quote][p][bold]999medic[/bold] wrote:
A National Disgrace, some of your comments are an insult to our boys, who do everything they can to protect us. Shoong your comments are offensive to every servicemans family, why dont you volunteer your services for the next couple of weeks and live in this damp stinking car park, or go up and manage a food source for these men and that goes for St Retford also.[/p][/quote]Thanks for posting few truths.
It is easy for those on this website who are virtually full timer 'Key boarders' to keep on posting their usual stuff, because more than likely they have no idea of how others think. Because such brats tend to live in world of thier ownParamjit Bahia

Two officers who won't be sleeping in the car park but will be watching the Games from ringside seats will be William and Harry Windsor, the latter the playboy of the western world!
Typical Britain, one rule for the privileged rich another for the poor.

Two officers who won't be sleeping in the car park but will be watching the Games from ringside seats will be William and Harry Windsor, the latter the playboy of the western world!
Typical Britain, one rule for the privileged rich another for the poor.TEBOURBA

chapelsaint wrote:
Shoong and Townieboy. Soldiers and hard they may very well be, but why should they have to be treated in this way when there are so many living the high life and giving so little back in return?

Think about it.

We didn't know they were needed until a few weeks ago thanks to no-one turning up for G4S security duties, what would you recommend, turfing out all the hotels and putting soldiers in there?

It's only for a couple of weeks, they have backbones so will get on with it.

For once i agree with you Shoong. These soldiers are doing the jobs they are supposed to do. For security reasons alone I suspect putting them in a hotel is folly and they are used to far worse conditions!! They train people to cope with all sorts in the army so I think a couple of weeks in a car park is a walk in the park compared to most of their frontline activity.

I suspect the families are fed up with leave being cancelled and quite rightly but would they rather there be some huge terrorist attack? I think not. that's what happens when you are in a front line service like this. I hope the government do give some recognition though to the whole army who have bailed them out of a whole lot of trouble and G4 are made to perhaps hand over some of their money to the armed forces !!

Noone forces anyone into the services, people go into it knowing that they could be put in danger, be in severe conditions etc. I admire anyone who has the bottle to do that but their job is to protect this country and they are doing just that. Stop moaning!

So FMG2 is opposing her family friend John Denham but supporting usual anti Denham people on this site.

With friends like these John could do with some enemies.

FMG you have really disappointed me. I suggest you take your dog for a long walk and think the implication of your comment. You may then change your mind and apologise to John

[quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]chapelsaint[/bold] wrote:
Shoong and Townieboy. Soldiers and hard they may very well be, but why should they have to be treated in this way when there are so many living the high life and giving so little back in return?[/p][/quote]Think about it.
We didn't know they were needed until a few weeks ago thanks to no-one turning up for G4S security duties, what would you recommend, turfing out all the hotels and putting soldiers in there?
It's only for a couple of weeks, they have backbones so will get on with it.[/p][/quote]For once i agree with you Shoong. These soldiers are doing the jobs they are supposed to do. For security reasons alone I suspect putting them in a hotel is folly and they are used to far worse conditions!! They train people to cope with all sorts in the army so I think a couple of weeks in a car park is a walk in the park compared to most of their frontline activity.
I suspect the families are fed up with leave being cancelled and quite rightly but would they rather there be some huge terrorist attack? I think not. that's what happens when you are in a front line service like this. I hope the government do give some recognition though to the whole army who have bailed them out of a whole lot of trouble and G4 are made to perhaps hand over some of their money to the armed forces !!
Noone forces anyone into the services, people go into it knowing that they could be put in danger, be in severe conditions etc. I admire anyone who has the bottle to do that but their job is to protect this country and they are doing just that. Stop moaning![/p][/quote]So FMG2 is opposing her family friend John Denham but supporting usual anti Denham people on this site.
With friends like these John could do with some enemies.
FMG you have really disappointed me. I suggest you take your dog for a long walk and think the implication of your comment. You may then change your mind and apologise to JohnParamjit Bahia

Keep going Freethinker, hulla baloo and Shoong, I don't need to prove a thing, People are able to remember things will know what St Retford and my self are on about, the Local SP and a branch of Sarmaritans came involved and between the two groups manage to make sure they all had 1 hot meal.
And Shoong they was not Homeless, they was bought in by coach, from the midlands citys, and it was a case of clean up London or lose there Benefits. and that happen on the Jubilee weekend.

Keep going Freethinker, hulla baloo and Shoong, I don't need to prove a thing, People are able to remember things will know what St Retford and my self are on about, the Local SP and a branch of Sarmaritans came involved and between the two groups manage to make sure they all had 1 hot meal.
And Shoong they was not Homeless, they was bought in by coach, from the midlands citys, and it was a case of clean up London or lose there Benefits. and that happen on the Jubilee weekend.southy

southy wrote:
Keep going Freethinker, hulla baloo and Shoong, I don't need to prove a thing, People are able to remember things will know what St Retford and my self are on about, the Local SP and a branch of Sarmaritans came involved and between the two groups manage to make sure they all had 1 hot meal.
And Shoong they was not Homeless, they was bought in by coach, from the midlands citys, and it was a case of clean up London or lose there Benefits. and that happen on the Jubilee weekend.

Dont need to prove a thing? So you will keep making sweeping comments, 'statements of fact' etc and when challenged to provide where you get the info from, you go quiet, ignore the topic or go to another subject. If you cant put up, then shut up.

[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
Keep going Freethinker, hulla baloo and Shoong, I don't need to prove a thing, People are able to remember things will know what St Retford and my self are on about, the Local SP and a branch of Sarmaritans came involved and between the two groups manage to make sure they all had 1 hot meal.
And Shoong they was not Homeless, they was bought in by coach, from the midlands citys, and it was a case of clean up London or lose there Benefits. and that happen on the Jubilee weekend.[/p][/quote]Dont need to prove a thing? So you will keep making sweeping comments, 'statements of fact' etc and when challenged to provide where you get the info from, you go quiet, ignore the topic or go to another subject. If you cant put up, then shut up.hulla baloo

southy wrote:
Keep going Freethinker, hulla baloo and Shoong, I don't need to prove a thing, People are able to remember things will know what St Retford and my self are on about, the Local SP and a branch of Sarmaritans came involved and between the two groups manage to make sure they all had 1 hot meal.
And Shoong they was not Homeless, they was bought in by coach, from the midlands citys, and it was a case of clean up London or lose there Benefits. and that happen on the Jubilee weekend.

Dont need to prove a thing? So you will keep making sweeping comments, 'statements of fact' etc and when challenged to provide where you get the info from, you go quiet, ignore the topic or go to another subject. If you cant put up, then shut up.

Did your mummy or daddy do/or help your homework for you when you was at school, is that why your not knowlegdable enough to know how to do some thing for self, now go away and do some thinking on your own back.

[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
Keep going Freethinker, hulla baloo and Shoong, I don't need to prove a thing, People are able to remember things will know what St Retford and my self are on about, the Local SP and a branch of Sarmaritans came involved and between the two groups manage to make sure they all had 1 hot meal.
And Shoong they was not Homeless, they was bought in by coach, from the midlands citys, and it was a case of clean up London or lose there Benefits. and that happen on the Jubilee weekend.[/p][/quote]Dont need to prove a thing? So you will keep making sweeping comments, 'statements of fact' etc and when challenged to provide where you get the info from, you go quiet, ignore the topic or go to another subject. If you cant put up, then shut up.[/p][/quote]Did your mummy or daddy do/or help your homework for you when you was at school, is that why your not knowlegdable enough to know how to do some thing for self, now go away and do some thinking on your own back.southy

southy wrote:
Keep going Freethinker, hulla baloo and Shoong, I don't need to prove a thing, People are able to remember things will know what St Retford and my self are on about, the Local SP and a branch of Sarmaritans came involved and between the two groups manage to make sure they all had 1 hot meal.
And Shoong they was not Homeless, they was bought in by coach, from the midlands citys, and it was a case of clean up London or lose there Benefits. and that happen on the Jubilee weekend.

Dont need to prove a thing? So you will keep making sweeping comments, 'statements of fact' etc and when challenged to provide where you get the info from, you go quiet, ignore the topic or go to another subject. If you cant put up, then shut up.

Did your mummy or daddy do/or help your homework for you when you was at school, is that why your not knowlegdable enough to know how to do some thing for self, now go away and do some thinking on your own back.

Again, deflecting the issue. If you make comments that you say are fact, then why do you find it so difficult to provide where you get the info from.?

[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
Keep going Freethinker, hulla baloo and Shoong, I don't need to prove a thing, People are able to remember things will know what St Retford and my self are on about, the Local SP and a branch of Sarmaritans came involved and between the two groups manage to make sure they all had 1 hot meal.
And Shoong they was not Homeless, they was bought in by coach, from the midlands citys, and it was a case of clean up London or lose there Benefits. and that happen on the Jubilee weekend.[/p][/quote]Dont need to prove a thing? So you will keep making sweeping comments, 'statements of fact' etc and when challenged to provide where you get the info from, you go quiet, ignore the topic or go to another subject. If you cant put up, then shut up.[/p][/quote]Did your mummy or daddy do/or help your homework for you when you was at school, is that why your not knowlegdable enough to know how to do some thing for self, now go away and do some thinking on your own back.[/p][/quote]Again, deflecting the issue. If you make comments that you say are fact, then why do you find it so difficult to provide where you get the info from.?hulla baloo

southy wrote:
Keep going Freethinker, hulla baloo and Shoong, I don't need to prove a thing, People are able to remember things will know what St Retford and my self are on about, the Local SP and a branch of Sarmaritans came involved and between the two groups manage to make sure they all had 1 hot meal.
And Shoong they was not Homeless, they was bought in by coach, from the midlands citys, and it was a case of clean up London or lose there Benefits. and that happen on the Jubilee weekend.

Dont need to prove a thing? So you will keep making sweeping comments, 'statements of fact' etc and when challenged to provide where you get the info from, you go quiet, ignore the topic or go to another subject. If you cant put up, then shut up.

[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
Keep going Freethinker, hulla baloo and Shoong, I don't need to prove a thing, People are able to remember things will know what St Retford and my self are on about, the Local SP and a branch of Sarmaritans came involved and between the two groups manage to make sure they all had 1 hot meal.
And Shoong they was not Homeless, they was bought in by coach, from the midlands citys, and it was a case of clean up London or lose there Benefits. and that happen on the Jubilee weekend.[/p][/quote]Dont need to prove a thing? So you will keep making sweeping comments, 'statements of fact' etc and when challenged to provide where you get the info from, you go quiet, ignore the topic or go to another subject. If you cant put up, then shut up.[/p][/quote]For the second time:
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04
/jubilee-pageant-une
mployedSt Retford

southy wrote:
Keep going Freethinker, hulla baloo and Shoong, I don't need to prove a thing, People are able to remember things will know what St Retford and my self are on about, the Local SP and a branch of Sarmaritans came involved and between the two groups manage to make sure they all had 1 hot meal.
And Shoong they was not Homeless, they was bought in by coach, from the midlands citys, and it was a case of clean up London or lose there Benefits. and that happen on the Jubilee weekend.

Dont need to prove a thing? So you will keep making sweeping comments, 'statements of fact' etc and when challenged to provide where you get the info from, you go quiet, ignore the topic or go to another subject. If you cant put up, then shut up.

For the second time:

http://www.guardian.

co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04

/jubilee-pageant-une

mployed

A friend in need is a friend indeed. I dont suppose you can also bale him out with the answer for Freefinker, as he has also been asking.

[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
Keep going Freethinker, hulla baloo and Shoong, I don't need to prove a thing, People are able to remember things will know what St Retford and my self are on about, the Local SP and a branch of Sarmaritans came involved and between the two groups manage to make sure they all had 1 hot meal.
And Shoong they was not Homeless, they was bought in by coach, from the midlands citys, and it was a case of clean up London or lose there Benefits. and that happen on the Jubilee weekend.[/p][/quote]Dont need to prove a thing? So you will keep making sweeping comments, 'statements of fact' etc and when challenged to provide where you get the info from, you go quiet, ignore the topic or go to another subject. If you cant put up, then shut up.[/p][/quote]For the second time:
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04
/jubilee-pageant-une
mployed[/p][/quote]A friend in need is a friend indeed. I dont suppose you can also bale him out with the answer for Freefinker, as he has also been asking.hulla baloo

southy wrote:
Keep going Freethinker, hulla baloo and Shoong, I don't need to prove a thing, People are able to remember things will know what St Retford and my self are on about, the Local SP and a branch of Sarmaritans came involved and between the two groups manage to make sure they all had 1 hot meal.
And Shoong they was not Homeless, they was bought in by coach, from the midlands citys, and it was a case of clean up London or lose there Benefits. and that happen on the Jubilee weekend.

Dont need to prove a thing? So you will keep making sweeping comments, 'statements of fact' etc and when challenged to provide where you get the info from, you go quiet, ignore the topic or go to another subject. If you cant put up, then shut up.

For the second time:

http://www.guardian.

co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04

/jubilee-pageant-une

mployed

Don't make it easy for them St Retford make them do some research giving them a spot to read and they will expect it all the time, instead of using there brain to think with and researching.
We giving them the starting point by telling them these key words, Benefit, bridge, Jubilee, all types of news media that should be enough to get them started.
It not as lo it was years ago, it only happen in just over a mth ago, and if they can remember that far back, they need to do some brain training for memory

[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
Keep going Freethinker, hulla baloo and Shoong, I don't need to prove a thing, People are able to remember things will know what St Retford and my self are on about, the Local SP and a branch of Sarmaritans came involved and between the two groups manage to make sure they all had 1 hot meal.
And Shoong they was not Homeless, they was bought in by coach, from the midlands citys, and it was a case of clean up London or lose there Benefits. and that happen on the Jubilee weekend.[/p][/quote]Dont need to prove a thing? So you will keep making sweeping comments, 'statements of fact' etc and when challenged to provide where you get the info from, you go quiet, ignore the topic or go to another subject. If you cant put up, then shut up.[/p][/quote]For the second time:
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04
/jubilee-pageant-une
mployed[/p][/quote]Don't make it easy for them St Retford make them do some research giving them a spot to read and they will expect it all the time, instead of using there brain to think with and researching.
We giving them the starting point by telling them these key words, Benefit, bridge, Jubilee, all types of news media that should be enough to get them started.
It not as lo it was years ago, it only happen in just over a mth ago, and if they can remember that far back, they need to do some brain training for memorysouthy

southy wrote:
Keep going Freethinker, hulla baloo and Shoong, I don't need to prove a thing, People are able to remember things will know what St Retford and my self are on about, the Local SP and a branch of Sarmaritans came involved and between the two groups manage to make sure they all had 1 hot meal.
And Shoong they was not Homeless, they was bought in by coach, from the midlands citys, and it was a case of clean up London or lose there Benefits. and that happen on the Jubilee weekend.

Dont need to prove a thing? So you will keep making sweeping comments, 'statements of fact' etc and when challenged to provide where you get the info from, you go quiet, ignore the topic or go to another subject. If you cant put up, then shut up.

For the second time:

http://www.guardian.

co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04

/jubilee-pageant-une

mployed

A friend in need is a friend indeed. I dont suppose you can also bale him out with the answer for Freefinker, as he has also been asking.

not a friend in need some one just to lazy, freefinker been told and point to the right direction he just can't accept it, and that is his problem.

[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
Keep going Freethinker, hulla baloo and Shoong, I don't need to prove a thing, People are able to remember things will know what St Retford and my self are on about, the Local SP and a branch of Sarmaritans came involved and between the two groups manage to make sure they all had 1 hot meal.
And Shoong they was not Homeless, they was bought in by coach, from the midlands citys, and it was a case of clean up London or lose there Benefits. and that happen on the Jubilee weekend.[/p][/quote]Dont need to prove a thing? So you will keep making sweeping comments, 'statements of fact' etc and when challenged to provide where you get the info from, you go quiet, ignore the topic or go to another subject. If you cant put up, then shut up.[/p][/quote]For the second time:
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04
/jubilee-pageant-une
mployed[/p][/quote]A friend in need is a friend indeed. I dont suppose you can also bale him out with the answer for Freefinker, as he has also been asking.[/p][/quote]not a friend in need some one just to lazy, freefinker been told and point to the right direction he just can't accept it, and that is his problem.southy

Can anyone advise how much annual leave a Flt Lieutenant in the RAF ( Prince William) and a 2nd Lieutenant in the Army ( Prince Harry ) are entitiled to?
Seems to me the pair of them get abundant leave, to jolly around, whilst the servicemen, many from council houses, coming back from a theatre of war are denied desperately needed R and R leave to dig teflon Coe,and the rest of the useless Olympic Games Organising Committee out of the mire.
One rule for the chiefs another for the braves! ---- Team GB 2012!!

Can anyone advise how much annual leave a Flt Lieutenant in the RAF ( Prince William) and a 2nd Lieutenant in the Army ( Prince Harry ) are entitiled to?
Seems to me the pair of them get abundant leave, to jolly around, whilst the servicemen, many from council houses, coming back from a theatre of war are denied desperately needed R and R leave to dig teflon Coe,and the rest of the useless Olympic Games Organising Committee out of the mire.
One rule for the chiefs another for the braves! ---- Team GB 2012!!TEBOURBA

TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.

They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.

Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.

It was in the news quite a lot at the time. Have a look for yourself:

http://www.guardian.

co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04

/jubilee-pageant-une

mployed

If the Guardian is the only source, then I still treat it with suspicion.

[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote:
They're soldiers - I'm sure they've seen a lot worse.
TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.[/p][/quote]They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.
Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.[/p][/quote]It was in the news quite a lot at the time. Have a look for yourself:
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04
/jubilee-pageant-une
mployed[/p][/quote]If the Guardian is the only source, then I still treat it with suspicion.Linesman

TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.

They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.

Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.

It was in the news quite a lot at the time. Have a look for yourself:

http://www.guardian.

co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04

/jubilee-pageant-une

mployed

If the Guardian is the only source, then I still treat it with suspicion.

[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote:
They're soldiers - I'm sure they've seen a lot worse.
TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.[/p][/quote]They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.
Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.[/p][/quote]It was in the news quite a lot at the time. Have a look for yourself:
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04
/jubilee-pageant-une
mployed[/p][/quote]If the Guardian is the only source, then I still treat it with suspicion.Linesman

Nothing new about this. The front line
troops have always been shat on from on high.
When I was in the Army the officers were the THEM and we were the US.
National Service 2nd Lieutenants were
complete tossers. The senior officers were mainly la de da and so out of touch with other ranks it was unbelieveable and NCOs like me were always caught in the middle.

Nothing new about this. The front line
troops have always been shat on from on high.
When I was in the Army the officers were the THEM and we were the US.
National Service 2nd Lieutenants were
complete tossers. The senior officers were mainly la de da and so out of touch with other ranks it was unbelieveable and NCOs like me were always caught in the middle.opera phantom

southy wrote:
Keep going Freethinker, hulla baloo and Shoong, I don't need to prove a thing, People are able to remember things will know what St Retford and my self are on about, the Local SP and a branch of Sarmaritans came involved and between the two groups manage to make sure they all had 1 hot meal.
And Shoong they was not Homeless, they was bought in by coach, from the midlands citys, and it was a case of clean up London or lose there Benefits. and that happen on the Jubilee weekend.

Dont need to prove a thing? So you will keep making sweeping comments, 'statements of fact' etc and when challenged to provide where you get the info from, you go quiet, ignore the topic or go to another subject. If you cant put up, then shut up.

For the second time:

http://www.guardian.

co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04

/jubilee-pageant-une

mployed

A friend in need is a friend indeed. I dont suppose you can also bale him out with the answer for Freefinker, as he has also been asking.

not a friend in need some one just to lazy, freefinker been told and point to the right direction he just can't accept it, and that is his problem.

No southy, we are all still waiting for the URL for the quote you used from that man Rahit Maryada.
You made it very clear it was a cut and paste, so now show us the URL.

Or, alternatively, just admit you got it wrong in believing Rahit Maryada was a person and not a code of conduct.

[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
Keep going Freethinker, hulla baloo and Shoong, I don't need to prove a thing, People are able to remember things will know what St Retford and my self are on about, the Local SP and a branch of Sarmaritans came involved and between the two groups manage to make sure they all had 1 hot meal.
And Shoong they was not Homeless, they was bought in by coach, from the midlands citys, and it was a case of clean up London or lose there Benefits. and that happen on the Jubilee weekend.[/p][/quote]Dont need to prove a thing? So you will keep making sweeping comments, 'statements of fact' etc and when challenged to provide where you get the info from, you go quiet, ignore the topic or go to another subject. If you cant put up, then shut up.[/p][/quote]For the second time:
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04
/jubilee-pageant-une
mployed[/p][/quote]A friend in need is a friend indeed. I dont suppose you can also bale him out with the answer for Freefinker, as he has also been asking.[/p][/quote]not a friend in need some one just to lazy, freefinker been told and point to the right direction he just can't accept it, and that is his problem.[/p][/quote]No southy, we are all still waiting for the URL for the quote you used from that man Rahit Maryada.
You made it very clear it was a cut and paste, so now show us the URL.
Or, alternatively, just admit you got it wrong in believing Rahit Maryada was a person and not a code of conduct.freefinker

TEBOURBA wrote:
Two officers who won't be sleeping in the car park but will be watching the Games from ringside seats will be William and Harry Windsor, the latter the playboy of the western world!
Typical Britain, one rule for the privileged rich another for the poor.

.. and easy targets for your poor humour.

[quote][p][bold]TEBOURBA[/bold] wrote:
Two officers who won't be sleeping in the car park but will be watching the Games from ringside seats will be William and Harry Windsor, the latter the playboy of the western world!
Typical Britain, one rule for the privileged rich another for the poor.[/p][/quote].. and easy targets for your poor humour.OSPREYSAINT

S!monOn wrote:
Just an observation but if there is no electricity.... where do the 2 individuals charge their mobile phones they're playing with in the photos?

Read carefully, it said some had no access to electricity, not all.

[quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote:
Just an observation but if there is no electricity.... where do the 2 individuals charge their mobile phones they're playing with in the photos?[/p][/quote]Read carefully, it said some had no access to electricity, not all.OSPREYSAINT

How about we just heap a bit of praise on the lads involved, they deserve a Gold Medal for adapting and doing the job properly, which is how it should have been in the first place. Penny pinching / Capitalism has probably cost the Country a lot of money. Never spend a pound now when it could save a fiver later?

How about we just heap a bit of praise on the lads involved, they deserve a Gold Medal for adapting and doing the job properly, which is how it should have been in the first place. Penny pinching / Capitalism has probably cost the Country a lot of money. Never spend a pound now when it could save a fiver later?OSPREYSAINT

TEBOURBA wrote:
Can anyone advise how much annual leave a Flt Lieutenant in the RAF ( Prince William) and a 2nd Lieutenant in the Army ( Prince Harry ) are entitiled to?
Seems to me the pair of them get abundant leave, to jolly around, whilst the servicemen, many from council houses, coming back from a theatre of war are denied desperately needed R and R leave to dig teflon Coe,and the rest of the useless Olympic Games Organising Committee out of the mire.
One rule for the chiefs another for the braves! ---- Team GB 2012!!

.. and you think that when they are on duty and serving there is anything different to the rest?

[quote][p][bold]TEBOURBA[/bold] wrote:
Can anyone advise how much annual leave a Flt Lieutenant in the RAF ( Prince William) and a 2nd Lieutenant in the Army ( Prince Harry ) are entitiled to?
Seems to me the pair of them get abundant leave, to jolly around, whilst the servicemen, many from council houses, coming back from a theatre of war are denied desperately needed R and R leave to dig teflon Coe,and the rest of the useless Olympic Games Organising Committee out of the mire.
One rule for the chiefs another for the braves! ---- Team GB 2012!![/p][/quote].. and you think that when they are on duty and serving there is anything different to the rest?OSPREYSAINT

sorry to ay this i be told they got elc/etc and food ok just mums they dont like it like my grandson said its ok yes we were rushed in but its ok and better then germany in the field long hrs people ok we are in the army not school sorry mum get a life

sorry to ay this i be told they got elc/etc and food ok just mums they dont like it like my grandson said its ok yes we were rushed in but its ok and better then germany in the field long hrs people ok we are in the army not school sorry mum get a lifeMax's 244

The government takes our troops for granted so what if they can handle it as they have fought abroad its called respect. These guys and girls have spent months away fighting for our country and looking forward to spending time with family members and they get this ffs.

The government takes our troops for granted so what if they can handle it as they have fought abroad its called respect. These guys and girls have spent months away fighting for our country and looking forward to spending time with family members and they get this ffs.Good Looking Man About Town

The government takes our troops for granted so what if they can handle it as they have fought abroad its called respect. These guys and girls have spent months away fighting for our country and looking forward to spending time with family members and they get this ffs.

The government takes our troops for granted so what if they can handle it as they have fought abroad its called respect. These guys and girls have spent months away fighting for our country and looking forward to spending time with family members and they get this ffs.Good Looking Man About Town

TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.

They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.

Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.

It was in the news quite a lot at the time. Have a look for yourself:

http://www.guardian.

co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04

/jubilee-pageant-une

mployed

If the Guardian is the only source, then I still treat it with suspicion.

it be harder to find a paper that did not end up reporting what went on that weekend of the jubilee and the benefit street cleaners.

[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote:
They're soldiers - I'm sure they've seen a lot worse.
TBH I was more concerned about the security workers during the Jubilee celebrations who were forced to work and to sleep under a bridge by the Thames or else lose their benefits.[/p][/quote]They probably have seen worse, but that is no excuse for them to be treated not much better than the dossers on our streets.
Have not read any reports about security workers being expected to sleep under a bridge by the Thames, and treat it with suspicion.[/p][/quote]It was in the news quite a lot at the time. Have a look for yourself:
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04
/jubilee-pageant-une
mployed[/p][/quote]If the Guardian is the only source, then I still treat it with suspicion.[/p][/quote]it be harder to find a paper that did not end up reporting what went on that weekend of the jubilee and the benefit street cleaners.southy

None of them looked **** off to me yesterday!! they are doing a grand job and getting to watch some great sport, dont even know why the echo is bleeting about it when it hasnt even bothered to get the facts.And yeah I did speak to a some of them!

None of them looked **** off to me yesterday!! they are doing a grand job and getting to watch some great sport, dont even know why the echo is bleeting about it when it hasnt even bothered to get the facts.And yeah I did speak to a some of them!wizard

Why did labour sign the contract with G4s in the first place?! Feel bad for the current government being left with an Olympics at the worst possible time in history.

Should have cancelled it and then we could have all been kept entertained watching Brown & Balls (up) in the dock on charges of gross negligence, but then that would be a fair world instead of the corrupt nonsense where they can **** away our public money, deregulate the banks and sign bloated agreements with no come back.

Why did labour sign the contract with G4s in the first place?! Feel bad for the current government being left with an Olympics at the worst possible time in history.
Should have cancelled it and then we could have all been kept entertained watching Brown & Balls (up) in the dock on charges of gross negligence, but then that would be a fair world instead of the corrupt nonsense where they can **** away our public money, deregulate the banks and sign bloated agreements with no come back.Portswoodfoke

Baybrit wrote:
The troops should housed and fed in hotels and G4S should pay ALL the bills.

We have Carpenters that could put up billeting sheds in less than a day, to house these chaps, Or they could of stayed at Tidworth camp and traveled up to London by train every morning and back every eveing, I am beginning to think this all about cost, than doing the right thing.

[quote][p][bold]Baybrit[/bold] wrote:
The troops should housed and fed in hotels and G4S should pay ALL the bills.[/p][/quote]We have Carpenters that could put up billeting sheds in less than a day, to house these chaps, Or they could of stayed at Tidworth camp and traveled up to London by train every morning and back every eveing, I am beginning to think this all about cost, than doing the right thing.southy

I'd just like to thank the Service Men and Women for keeping us all safe. It's refreshing to see them protecting our own Country rather than being sent to interfere in other Countries.

No matter where they sleep, they will be highly respected and thought of.

I'd just like to thank the Service Men and Women for keeping us all safe. It's refreshing to see them protecting our own Country rather than being sent to interfere in other Countries.
No matter where they sleep, they will be highly respected and thought of.IronLady2010

TEBOURBA wrote:
The organisation of the Olympic Games, security wise, has been an absolute shambles, blame to be laid at teflon Coe, LOCOG and the Home Secretary.
Exhausted troops from Afghanistan looking forward to spending the school holidays with their families, drafted in at the last minute, sleeping in car parks.
By the time they are relieved the school holidays will be over and they will have lost this precious with their children.
Not all servicemen are affected however, Princes William and Harry, both serving officers, seem to have an inordinate amount of leave!!

It's only a couple of weeks, hardly Siberia!

[quote][p][bold]TEBOURBA[/bold] wrote:
The organisation of the Olympic Games, security wise, has been an absolute shambles, blame to be laid at teflon Coe, LOCOG and the Home Secretary.
Exhausted troops from Afghanistan looking forward to spending the school holidays with their families, drafted in at the last minute, sleeping in car parks.
By the time they are relieved the school holidays will be over and they will have lost this precious with their children.
Not all servicemen are affected however, Princes William and Harry, both serving officers, seem to have an inordinate amount of leave!![/p][/quote]It's only a couple of weeks, hardly Siberia!Paul TS

chapelsaint wrote:
Shoong and Townieboy. Soldiers and hard they may very well be, but why should they have to be treated in this way when there are so many living the high life and giving so little back in return?

Think about it.

We didn't know they were needed until a few weeks ago thanks to no-one turning up for G4S security duties, what would you recommend, turfing out all the hotels and putting soldiers in there?

It's only for a couple of weeks, they have backbones so will get on with it.

For once i agree with you Shoong. These soldiers are doing the jobs they are supposed to do. For security reasons alone I suspect putting them in a hotel is folly and they are used to far worse conditions!! They train people to cope with all sorts in the army so I think a couple of weeks in a car park is a walk in the park compared to most of their frontline activity.

I suspect the families are fed up with leave being cancelled and quite rightly but would they rather there be some huge terrorist attack? I think not. that's what happens when you are in a front line service like this. I hope the government do give some recognition though to the whole army who have bailed them out of a whole lot of trouble and G4 are made to perhaps hand over some of their money to the armed forces !!

Noone forces anyone into the services, people go into it knowing that they could be put in danger, be in severe conditions etc. I admire anyone who has the bottle to do that but their job is to protect this country and they are doing just that. Stop moaning!

You muppet.

The job of soldiers is to protect the nation, not bail out a security firm! I know that soldiers are used to worse conditions but that is not excuse to treat them as badly as they are being treated.

The government are a bloody joke allowing such a farce to occur.

My question would be, where were the G4S security personal going to be sleeping?

I agree, their job isn't to bail out a security firm. but the government decided to take that action it isn't on the orders of G4 is it. And they are protecting the nation (doh) plus the people who are visiting said nation. So I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make unless it's a daily opportunity to call someone a muppet LOL. You've got the wrong end o the stick and jumped to conclusions as per.

Where does it say in the Army contract &quot;we'll put you up in a premier inn" ? although good point about barracks but I supect they are already full perhaps, and this group of soldiers are only a small part of the task force, which already consisted of London based/barracked soldiers.

I agree entirely about the government so go call someone else a muppet and make sure you read people's comments properly eh? some people on here just like to disagree about nothing dear oh dear. And if they can't find anything to disagree about or pick on Southy then they'll look for something that isn't there.

I did understand your post, i suggest you re read it yourself and understand why some of your comments were pathetic.

I call them as i see them and on that comment you were a muppet, more particularly the comment on its their job so stop moaning!

That was insensitive and no thought given to what you were writing. At least I hope you had given no thought to it, as if you had the use of the word muppet should be replaced by a much harsher one!

I dont want to pick on anyone, but i cant stand people bashing the armed forces who die for our freedoms.

[quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Taskforce 141[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]chapelsaint[/bold] wrote:
Shoong and Townieboy. Soldiers and hard they may very well be, but why should they have to be treated in this way when there are so many living the high life and giving so little back in return?[/p][/quote]Think about it.
We didn't know they were needed until a few weeks ago thanks to no-one turning up for G4S security duties, what would you recommend, turfing out all the hotels and putting soldiers in there?
It's only for a couple of weeks, they have backbones so will get on with it.[/p][/quote]For once i agree with you Shoong. These soldiers are doing the jobs they are supposed to do. For security reasons alone I suspect putting them in a hotel is folly and they are used to far worse conditions!! They train people to cope with all sorts in the army so I think a couple of weeks in a car park is a walk in the park compared to most of their frontline activity.
I suspect the families are fed up with leave being cancelled and quite rightly but would they rather there be some huge terrorist attack? I think not. that's what happens when you are in a front line service like this. I hope the government do give some recognition though to the whole army who have bailed them out of a whole lot of trouble and G4 are made to perhaps hand over some of their money to the armed forces !!
Noone forces anyone into the services, people go into it knowing that they could be put in danger, be in severe conditions etc. I admire anyone who has the bottle to do that but their job is to protect this country and they are doing just that. Stop moaning![/p][/quote]You muppet.
The job of soldiers is to protect the nation, not bail out a security firm! I know that soldiers are used to worse conditions but that is not excuse to treat them as badly as they are being treated.
The government are a bloody joke allowing such a farce to occur.
My question would be, where were the G4S security personal going to be sleeping?[/p][/quote]I agree, their job isn't to bail out a security firm. but the government decided to take that action it isn't on the orders of G4 is it. And they are protecting the nation (doh) plus the people who are visiting said nation. So I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make unless it's a daily opportunity to call someone a muppet LOL. You've got the wrong end o the stick and jumped to conclusions as per.
Where does it say in the Army contract "we'll put you up in a premier inn" ? although good point about barracks but I supect they are already full perhaps, and this group of soldiers are only a small part of the task force, which already consisted of London based/barracked soldiers.
I agree entirely about the government so go call someone else a muppet and make sure you read people's comments properly eh? some people on here just like to disagree about nothing dear oh dear. And if they can't find anything to disagree about or pick on Southy then they'll look for something that isn't there.[/p][/quote]I did understand your post, i suggest you re read it yourself and understand why some of your comments were pathetic.
I call them as i see them and on that comment you were a muppet, more particularly the comment on its their job so stop moaning!
That was insensitive and no thought given to what you were writing. At least I hope you had given no thought to it, as if you had the use of the word muppet should be replaced by a much harsher one!
I dont want to pick on anyone, but i cant stand people bashing the armed forces who die for our freedoms.Taskforce 141

Portswoodfoke wrote:
Why did labour sign the contract with G4s in the first place?! Feel bad for the current government being left with an Olympics at the worst possible time in history.

Should have cancelled it and then we could have all been kept entertained watching Brown &amp; Balls (up) in the dock on charges of gross negligence, but then that would be a fair world instead of the corrupt nonsense where they can **** away our public money, deregulate the banks and sign bloated agreements with no come back.

Ahh the good old "silicone shoulders" of the Tory party.
.
After 2.5 years in power and still constant denial that anything is the Tories fault.
.

[quote][p][bold]Portswoodfoke[/bold] wrote:
Why did labour sign the contract with G4s in the first place?! Feel bad for the current government being left with an Olympics at the worst possible time in history.
Should have cancelled it and then we could have all been kept entertained watching Brown & Balls (up) in the dock on charges of gross negligence, but then that would be a fair world instead of the corrupt nonsense where they can **** away our public money, deregulate the banks and sign bloated agreements with no come back.[/p][/quote]Ahh the good old "silicone shoulders" of the Tory party.
.
After 2.5 years in power and still constant denial that anything is the Tories fault.
.Lone Ranger.

as an ex squadie this is nothing New to say i've been there and got the tshirt is an understatement all the boy's will want is food in the bellies and somewhere to crash and wash>having said that they should not for the duration be paying board and lodge thats what needs to be corrected let GS4 pick up there tab and dont forget the beer as well.

as an ex squadie this is nothing New to say i've been there and got the tshirt is an understatement all the boy's will want is food in the bellies and somewhere to crash and wash>having said that they should not for the duration be paying board and lodge thats what needs to be corrected let GS4 pick up there tab and dont forget the beer as well.bobbyboy

Was told mason son is getting out so why she is saying they are getting it bad as the mod site said they have elc /etc 2500 army there and they say it's ok my grandson there said its ok and mums just trying to but 1pwrr down they are looking after us just a lot have sign off since tour let them go if they don't like the army my brother in the reg also say this and he's on course sorry to say get out if you don't like it done 6 years with reg

Was told mason son is getting out so why she is saying they are getting it bad as the mod site said they have elc /etc 2500 army there and they say it's ok my grandson there said its ok and mums just trying to but 1pwrr down they are looking after us just a lot have sign off since tour let them go if they don't like the army my brother in the reg also say this and he's on course sorry to say get out if you don't like it done 6 years with regMax's 244

Shoong wrote:
They are soldiers - they are trained to be hard and can take it. I doubt you'll find them complaining either.

Agreed. Better to be in england than being shot at. Hoiday camp for them.

Bet you would find them complaining, and I bet neither of you know any armed forces who are doing this! . . You have no idea it might be in the UK but same applies they don't see their family they work 12 + hour days and they take a load of mouth that they do not deserve. They are taking all the risks by searching people who have come from all over the world not to mention the gangs and protesters that live in London anyway! I would not call where they are living holiday camps and if you think the picture the echo has published it bad you should see the photos i have from my hubby! Maybe you ought to think before you speak because you are offending people who know best!

Sorry I was under the impression that part of the contract or whatever it is when you sign up with the Armed Forces is that you 'go where you are sent'. Surely marrying a member of the Armed Forces you understood that.

See there you go again.... assuming! My partner left the forces 2 years ago but because of the mess he was called up . So there he is trying to make the best of the situation and you are mugging them off!

How do you mean, 'called up'? If he's not in the army any more then presumably it was more a case of him being offered a few quid in exchange for a couple of week's work?

I'm sure it's not a laugh a minute but they've all chosen to be there, one way or another.

1987, why do you even bother. These weak, liberal, bed wetting light weights will never understand. Back from Afghan, off on leave, then to have it cancelled and you get this moronic lot saying that is what they are paid for et al. Could you imagine depending on them in a crisis. Being on the Reserve must be a pain for your Husband. Always a reservist, so do understand and respect your Husbands, and your, sacrifices.

[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]girl1987[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]girl1987[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]townieboy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
They are soldiers - they are trained to be hard and can take it. I doubt you'll find them complaining either.[/p][/quote]Agreed. Better to be in england than being shot at. Hoiday camp for them.[/p][/quote]Bet you would find them complaining, and I bet neither of you know any armed forces who are doing this! . . You have no idea it might be in the UK but same applies they don't see their family they work 12 + hour days and they take a load of mouth that they do not deserve. They are taking all the risks by searching people who have come from all over the world not to mention the gangs and protesters that live in London anyway! I would not call where they are living holiday camps and if you think the picture the echo has published it bad you should see the photos i have from my hubby! Maybe you ought to think before you speak because you are offending people who know best![/p][/quote]Sorry I was under the impression that part of the contract or whatever it is when you sign up with the Armed Forces is that you 'go where you are sent'. Surely marrying a member of the Armed Forces you understood that.[/p][/quote]See there you go again.... assuming! My partner left the forces 2 years ago but because of the mess he was called up . So there he is trying to make the best of the situation and you are mugging them off![/p][/quote]How do you mean, 'called up'? If he's not in the army any more then presumably it was more a case of him being offered a few quid in exchange for a couple of week's work?
I'm sure it's not a laugh a minute but they've all chosen to be there, one way or another.[/p][/quote]1987, why do you even bother. These weak, liberal, bed wetting light weights will never understand. Back from Afghan, off on leave, then to have it cancelled and you get this moronic lot saying that is what they are paid for et al. Could you imagine depending on them in a crisis. Being on the Reserve must be a pain for your Husband. Always a reservist, so do understand and respect your Husbands, and your, sacrifices.Sir Ad E Noid

chapelsaint wrote:
Shoong and Townieboy. Soldiers and hard they may very well be, but why should they have to be treated in this way when there are so many living the high life and giving so little back in return?

Think about it.

We didn't know they were needed until a few weeks ago thanks to no-one turning up for G4S security duties, what would you recommend, turfing out all the hotels and putting soldiers in there?

It's only for a couple of weeks, they have backbones so will get on with it.

For once i agree with you Shoong. These soldiers are doing the jobs they are supposed to do. For security reasons alone I suspect putting them in a hotel is folly and they are used to far worse conditions!! They train people to cope with all sorts in the army so I think a couple of weeks in a car park is a walk in the park compared to most of their frontline activity.

I suspect the families are fed up with leave being cancelled and quite rightly but would they rather there be some huge terrorist attack? I think not. that's what happens when you are in a front line service like this. I hope the government do give some recognition though to the whole army who have bailed them out of a whole lot of trouble and G4 are made to perhaps hand over some of their money to the armed forces !!

Noone forces anyone into the services, people go into it knowing that they could be put in danger, be in severe conditions etc. I admire anyone who has the bottle to do that but their job is to protect this country and they are doing just that. Stop moaning!

You muppet.

The job of soldiers is to protect the nation, not bail out a security firm! I know that soldiers are used to worse conditions but that is not excuse to treat them as badly as they are being treated.

The government are a bloody joke allowing such a farce to occur.

My question would be, where were the G4S security personal going to be sleeping?

I agree, their job isn't to bail out a security firm. but the government decided to take that action it isn't on the orders of G4 is it. And they are protecting the nation (doh) plus the people who are visiting said nation. So I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make unless it's a daily opportunity to call someone a muppet LOL. You've got the wrong end o the stick and jumped to conclusions as per.

Where does it say in the Army contract &quot;we'll put you up in a premier inn" ? although good point about barracks but I supect they are already full perhaps, and this group of soldiers are only a small part of the task force, which already consisted of London based/barracked soldiers.

I agree entirely about the government so go call someone else a muppet and make sure you read people's comments properly eh? some people on here just like to disagree about nothing dear oh dear. And if they can't find anything to disagree about or pick on Southy then they'll look for something that isn't there.

I did understand your post, i suggest you re read it yourself and understand why some of your comments were pathetic.

I call them as i see them and on that comment you were a muppet, more particularly the comment on its their job so stop moaning!

That was insensitive and no thought given to what you were writing. At least I hope you had given no thought to it, as if you had the use of the word muppet should be replaced by a much harsher one!

I dont want to pick on anyone, but i cant stand people bashing the armed forces who die for our freedoms.

Respect Task force. The Freeloader is typical of the Moronic minority that argue for no other reason than being a Moron. Ask her and her Moronic mates what they have done for this Country? Jack, apart from moaning. Respect our forces, living in a car park when you are meant to be on leave is not a joke, and please don't morph a thread into worrying about street cleaners living under bridges. That is something else, although of concern, not linked with this topic. Bring on the Gimps.

[quote][p][bold]Taskforce 141[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Taskforce 141[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]chapelsaint[/bold] wrote:
Shoong and Townieboy. Soldiers and hard they may very well be, but why should they have to be treated in this way when there are so many living the high life and giving so little back in return?[/p][/quote]Think about it.
We didn't know they were needed until a few weeks ago thanks to no-one turning up for G4S security duties, what would you recommend, turfing out all the hotels and putting soldiers in there?
It's only for a couple of weeks, they have backbones so will get on with it.[/p][/quote]For once i agree with you Shoong. These soldiers are doing the jobs they are supposed to do. For security reasons alone I suspect putting them in a hotel is folly and they are used to far worse conditions!! They train people to cope with all sorts in the army so I think a couple of weeks in a car park is a walk in the park compared to most of their frontline activity.
I suspect the families are fed up with leave being cancelled and quite rightly but would they rather there be some huge terrorist attack? I think not. that's what happens when you are in a front line service like this. I hope the government do give some recognition though to the whole army who have bailed them out of a whole lot of trouble and G4 are made to perhaps hand over some of their money to the armed forces !!
Noone forces anyone into the services, people go into it knowing that they could be put in danger, be in severe conditions etc. I admire anyone who has the bottle to do that but their job is to protect this country and they are doing just that. Stop moaning![/p][/quote]You muppet.
The job of soldiers is to protect the nation, not bail out a security firm! I know that soldiers are used to worse conditions but that is not excuse to treat them as badly as they are being treated.
The government are a bloody joke allowing such a farce to occur.
My question would be, where were the G4S security personal going to be sleeping?[/p][/quote]I agree, their job isn't to bail out a security firm. but the government decided to take that action it isn't on the orders of G4 is it. And they are protecting the nation (doh) plus the people who are visiting said nation. So I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make unless it's a daily opportunity to call someone a muppet LOL. You've got the wrong end o the stick and jumped to conclusions as per.
Where does it say in the Army contract "we'll put you up in a premier inn" ? although good point about barracks but I supect they are already full perhaps, and this group of soldiers are only a small part of the task force, which already consisted of London based/barracked soldiers.
I agree entirely about the government so go call someone else a muppet and make sure you read people's comments properly eh? some people on here just like to disagree about nothing dear oh dear. And if they can't find anything to disagree about or pick on Southy then they'll look for something that isn't there.[/p][/quote]I did understand your post, i suggest you re read it yourself and understand why some of your comments were pathetic.
I call them as i see them and on that comment you were a muppet, more particularly the comment on its their job so stop moaning!
That was insensitive and no thought given to what you were writing. At least I hope you had given no thought to it, as if you had the use of the word muppet should be replaced by a much harsher one!
I dont want to pick on anyone, but i cant stand people bashing the armed forces who die for our freedoms.[/p][/quote]Respect Task force. The Freeloader is typical of the Moronic minority that argue for no other reason than being a Moron. Ask her and her Moronic mates what they have done for this Country? Jack, apart from moaning. Respect our forces, living in a car park when you are meant to be on leave is not a joke, and please don't morph a thread into worrying about street cleaners living under bridges. That is something else, although of concern, not linked with this topic. Bring on the Gimps.Sir Ad E Noid